iiliilllr 


^ 

1        J^ 

V 

1" 

i 

C 

c  > 

CO  en 

^             uJ 

^ 

c 

.§    ^ 

^ 

•H    ^      1 

^ 

&D  dJ 

§>      s 

•H  IS      ' 

^ 

^ 

U 

§       a 

^ 

0    OJ 

•«       2 

>-- 

00 

0)  +J 

J^          B 

rH 

1^' 

o 
c 

1                  .^j^ 

3 

o 

O    W 
CO    0) 

^ 

ID 

^  ^ 

t 

^ 

^  o 

4J    U 

% 

^ 

4 

PQ 

►—J 

^ 

^^ 

Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  frorn 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/lettersonorigiOOnewy 


LETTERS 


ORIGIN  AND  PROGRESS 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY. 


V 

From  a  New  England  Minister  to  one  at  the  South. 

J 


NEW   YORK. 
ROBERT  CARTER  AND    EZRA  COLLIER. 

M  DCCC  XXXVII. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1837,  by 

CASE,    TIFFANY    AND    COMPANY, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office   of  the  District  Court  of  Connecticut. 


Printed  by 
CASE,  TIFFANY  &  CO. 

Hartford,  Con. 


r-T 


''  S'Jgo 

< 

^  ■ -''^IV'rrr  ~  • 

PREFACE 

The  circumstances  which  have  led  to  the  publica- 
tion of  this  little  volume,  are  the  following :  In  the 
month  of  February,  18:37,  the  author  received  a  letter 
from  a  distinguished  clergyman  in  one  of  the  Southern 
States,  requesting  some  information  respecting  the 
origin  and  progress  of  the  New  Divinity  in  New 
England.  He  probably  expected  no  more  than  a 
single  letter,  in  reply.  The  author,  however,  in 
attempting  to  answer  his  inquiries,  soon  perceived 
that  he  could  not  give  the  desired  information  in 
a  single  letter.  He  accordingly  concluded  to  write  a 
series  of  letters,  and  commit  them  to  the  disposal  of  his 
correspondent,  who  judged  it  expedient  to  give  them 
to  the  public  through  the  press.  They  were  first  pub- 
lished in  the  Southern  Christian  Herald,  and  have  been 
copied  into  several  other  papers  in  different  parts  of  the 
country.  The  interest  excited  by  them  is  far  greater 
than  was  anticipated  by  the  writer.  They  are  now  col- 
lected into  a  volume,  at  the  earnest  request  of  many 
who  have  read  them,  and  with  the  hope  that  they  may 
contribute  something  to  the  cause  of  truth. 

The  object  of  these  letters,  is  to  give  a  brief,  but 
faithfid  account  of  what  has  sometimes  been  denomina- 
ted the  i!iev7  Haven   controversy.      Considering  the 


JV  PREFACE. 

interest  awakened  by  this  controversy,  it  is  obviously 
important  that  its  history  should  be  known  ;  and  that 
the  points  of  doctrine  involved  in  it,  should  be  clearly 
understood.  And  this  is  the  more  important  at  the 
present  time,  on  account  of  the  pains  which  have  been 
taken  to  make  the  impression  that  the  New  Haven 
Divinity  is  New  England  Divinity,  and  in  this  way  to 
excite  prejudice  in  the  Presbyterian  church  against  the 
whole  of  New  England.  Several  of  the  last  letters  in 
the  series,  are  intended  to  set  this  matter  in  its  true 
light.  By  a  comparison  of  the  wTitings  of  the  New 
Haven  divines  with  those  of  the  standard  theolo:iical 
writers  of  New  England,  it  is  shown,  that  they  not  only  do 
not  harmonize,  but  are  widely  at  variance  ;  ard  that  in 
relation  to  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith. 
In  revising  these  letters,  the  writer  has  made  some 
slight  alterations  in  the  phraseology  ;  and  added  a  few 
quotations,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  more  full  view  of 
the  controversy  to  those  who  have  had  but  a  limited 
acquaintance  with  the  public  discussions  of  the  last  eight 
or  ten  years. 


LETTER   I. 

February  10,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

Although  I  never  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing 
your  face,  I  have  for  some  time  felt  acquainted 
with  you,  having  heard  so  much  respecting  you 
from  our  mutual  friend,  Mr.  Nettleton.  I  was 
therefore  fully  prepared  to  reciprocate  every  ex- 
pression of  confidence  contained  in  your  kind 
and  friendly  letter  of  the  first  inst.  I  can  assure 
you  that  brother  N.  remembers  with  deep  inter- 
est the  season  which  he  spent  under  your  hospi- 
table roof;  and  that  he  will  ever  cherish  a  grateful 
sense  of  the  tokens  of  affection  which  he  receiv- 
ed from  you  and  your  family.  And  here  permit 
me  to  say,  that,  having  been  intimately  acquaint- 
ed with  him  for  the  last  five  and  twenty  years,  I 
can  cheerfully  subscribe  to  every  word  which 
you  have  said  in  testimony  of  his  worth. 

But  I  must  proceed  to  answer  your  inquiries 
respecting  "  the  origin  and  progress  of  Arminian 
views  in  New  England."  I  suppose  you  refer  to 
the  New  Haven  speculations.  I  have  had  oppor- 
tunity to  know  something  of  the  history  of  these 
1* 


b  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

speculations ;  but  the  story  is  long,  and  cannot 
be  told  in  a  single  letter,  Jf  you  will  have  pa- 
tience with  me,  I  will  attempt  to  give  you  a  brief 
history  in  a  series  of  letters,  promising  to  bring 
my  narrative  within  as  narrow  compass  as  pos- 
sible. 

It  is  true,  as  was  stated  by  Dr.  Porter  in  his 
letter  to  Dr.  Beecher,  that  "  Arminianism  re- 
ceived from  the  hand  of  Edwards  its  death  blow, 
of  which  it  lingered  more  than  half  a  century  in 
New  England  and  died.  Our  orthodoxy  had  set- 
tled into  a  solid,  tranquil,  scriptural  state ;  and 
perhaps  no  body  of  ministers  since  the  world 
began  have  been  so  united,  and  so  manifestly 
blessed  of  God,  as  the  ministers  of  New  Eng- 
land." Such  was  the  state  of  things,  when,  as 
Dr.  Porter  says — "  A  battery  was  opened  in 
Connecticut,  a  standard  raised,  and  a  campaign 
begun." 

The  first  indications  that  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines were  beginning  to  adopt  opinions  at  vari- 
ance with  those  which  commonly  prevailed 
among  the  orthodox,  appeared  while  the  con- 
troversy between  Dr.  Woods  of  Andover,  and 
Dr.  Ware  of  Cambridge,  was  in  progress;  which 
was  in  1820,  '21.  Dr.  Taylor  expressed  to  some 
of  his  brethren  great  dissatisfaction  with  the 
manner  in  which  Dr.  Woods  had  conducted  the 
controversy,  and  with  the  views  which  he  had 
advanced,  particularly  on  the  subject  of  Native 
Depravity.  He  was  heard  to  say,  that  on  that 
subject  Dr.  Ware  had  the  better  of  the  argu- 
ment, and  that  Dr.  Woods  had  put  back  the  con- 
troversy with  Unitarians  fifty  years.  Under  the 
impulse  of  these  feelings,  he  prepared  an  article 


OP    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  7 

for  the  Christian  Spectator,  which  he  submitted 
to  the  association  of  gentlemen,  by  whom,  in 
connexion  with  the  editor,  the  work  was  conduct- 
ed. The  Association  decided  that  it  was  not 
expedient  to  publish  the  article.  Of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  piece,  and  the  sentiments  which  it 
contained,  you  may  perhaps  form  some  conjec- 
ture from  the  following  circumstance.  While 
Dr.  Taylor  was  reading  it,  one  of  the  gentlemen 
present  composed  and  wrote  with  his  pencil  this 
stanza  : 

Immortal  Edwards,  whom  religion  hails 
Her  favorite  son,  a  Taylor  overthrew  ; 
A  Taylor  now  tlie  great  man's  gliost  assails. 
His  doctrine  doubts,  and  error  vamps  anew. 

I  am  not  able  to  fix  the  precise  date  of  this 
event.  I  am  not  certain  whether  it  was  previous 
or  subsequent  to  the  fact  which  I  am  about  to 
relate.  On  Saturday  evening,  Dec.  15,  1821, 
Professor  Goodrich  of  Yale  College,  in  his  course 
of  lectures  to  the  college  students,  came  to  the 
doctrine  of  Original  Sin.  He  commenced  his 
lecture  by  observing  that  he  was  about  to  present 
a  different  view  of  the  subject  from  that  which  is 
commonly  received;  and  proceeded  to  exhibit 
the  views  which  were  afterwards  published  in  the 
Christian  Spectator ;  and  which  I  shall  have  oc- 
casion to  notice  in  a  future  letter.  Some  of  the 
pious  students,  who  had  read  the  controversy 
between  Dr.  Woods  and  Dr.  Ware,  thought  that 
the  views  exhibited  in  this  lecture  bore  a  strik- 
ing resemblance  to  those  of  Dr.  Ware.  They 
were  grieved  and  alarmed.  Some  of  them  wrote 
to  their  friends,  and  in  this  way  considerable  un- 
easiness was  excited.     Mr.  Nettleton  was  at  this 


8  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

time  laboring  in  Litchfield  with  Dr.  Beecher. 
On  hearing  what  had  transpired  at  New  Haven, 
Dr.  Beecher  wrote  to  Dr.  Taylor,  and  some  cor- 
respondence ensued.  Professor  Goodrich  sent 
his  lecture  to  Litchfield.  About  that  time  Dr. 
Humphrey,  then  pastor  of  the  church  in  Pitts- 
field,  now  President  of  Amherst  College,  hap- 
pened to  be  there  on  a  visit.  He  and  Mr.  Net- 
tleton  examined  it  together,  and  were  greatly 
dissatisfied.  Dr.  Beecher  did  not  approve  of  the 
views  expressed  by  Professor  Goodrich  and  Dr. 
Taylor;  yet  in  his  correspondence  at  this  time, 
he  made  some  concessions  with  which  Mr.  Net- 
tleton  was  not  satisfied  ;  and  in  a  letter  which 
he  (Mr.  N.)  wrote  to  Dr.  Taylor,  he  said  : 

"  With  all  my  love  and  respect  for  brothers 
Taylor  and  Goodrich  and  Beecher,  I  must  say 
that  neither  my  judgment,  nor  concjence,  nor 
heart,  can  acquiesce,  and  I  can  go  with  you  no 
farther.  Whatever  you  may  say  about  infants, 
for  one,  I  do  solemnly  believe  that  God  views, 
and  treats  them  in  all  respects,  just  as  he  would 
do  if  they  were  sinners.  To  say  that  animals 
die,  and  therefore  death  can  be  no  proof  of  sin 
in  infants,  is  to  take  infidel  ground.  The  infidel 
has  just  as  good  a  right  to  say,  because  animals 
die  without  being  sinners,  therefore  adulis  may. 
If  death  may  reign  to  such  an  alarming  extent 
over  the  human  race,  and  yet  be  no  proof  of 
sin,  then  you  adopt  the  principle  that  death  may 
reign  to  any  extent  over  the  universe,  and  it  can 
never  be  made  a  proof  of  sin  in  "any  case.  Then 
what  Paul  says  "  Death  by  sin,  and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  have  sinned,"  is 
not  true.  '  Infants  die  either  on  account  of  their 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  9 

own  sin,  or  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  neither.  Hence 
the  most  that  Paul  can  mean  is  this,  death  by  sin, 
if  tliey  live  long  enough ;  if  not,  they  shall  die 
without  it.  You  may  speculate  better  than  I 
can  ;  but  I  know  one  thing  better  than  you  do. 
I  know  better  what  Christians  will,  and  what 
they  will  not  receive ;  and  I  forewarn  you  that 
whenever  you  come  out,  our  best  Christians  will 
revolt.  I  felt  a  deep  Interest  in  the  controversy 
between  the  Orthodox  and  Unitarians,  while  it 
was  kept  out  on  the  open  field  of  Total  Deprav- 
ity, Regeneration  hy  the  Holy  Spirit,  Divine 
Sovereignty,  and  Ehetion.  For  this  was  taking 
the  enemy  by  the  heart,  and  I  knew  who  would 
conquer.  But  you  are  giving  the  discussion  a 
bad  turn,  and  I  have  lost  all  my  interest  in  the 
subject,  and  do  not  wish  my  fellow  sinners  to 
hear  it.  I  do  fear  it  is  a  trick  of  the  devil  to 
send  brother  Taylor  on  a  wild  goose  chase  after 
what  he  will  never  find,  and  which  if  found  would 
not  be  worth  one  straw."  These  are  only  short 
extracts  from  a  long:  letter.  The  whole  has  not 
been  preseived.  This  letter  Mr.  Nettleton  read 
to  Dr.  Beecher. 

This  was  in  December,  1821.  After  this  Mr. 
Nettleton  had  repeated  private  discussions  with 
the  brethren  at  New  Haven,  in  which  he  express- 
ed his  dissatisfaction  with  their  peculiar  views, 
and  faithfully  expostulated  with  them  on  the  dan- 
ger of  causing  division  among  the  ministers  and 
churches  of  New  England.  And  yet  for  several 
years  it  was  curreiitly  reported,  and  extensively 
believed,  that  he  agreed  with  the  New  Haven 
divines,  and  the  influence  of  his  name  was  made 
use  of  to  give  currency  to  their  peculiar  views. 


10  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

How  unjustly  this  was  done,  is  evident  from  the 
foregoing  extracts.  The  alarm  which  was  occa- 
sioned among  the  pious  students,  by  the  lecture 
of  Professor  Goodrich,  was  somewhat  allayed  by 
some  explanations  which  he  made  to  them,  and 
for  a  season  the  matter  was  in  a  great  measure 
hushed.  But  Mr.  Nettleton,  and  some  others 
who  were  acquainted  with  the  facts,  were  not 
without  great  solicitude.  Meanwhile  the  Pro- 
fessorship of  Didactic  Theology  was  founded  in 
Yale  College,  Dr.  Taylor  was  appointed  Profes- 
sor, and  the  Theological  School  was  organized 
in  its  present  form  in  1822.  The  founders  of 
this  Professorship,  required  the  Professor  to  sign 
the  following  declaration  :  ''  I  hereby  declare  my 
free  assent  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Ec- 
clesiastical Discipline,  agreed  upon  by  the 
churches  of  the  State,  in  the  year  1708."  Dr. 
Taylor  signed  this  declaration  and  was  inducted 
into  office.  The  Confession  of  Faith  here  speci- 
fied is  what  has  been  denominated  the  Saybrook 
Platform,  and  so  far  as  doctrines  are  concerned, 
differs  scarcely  at  all  from  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

In  1826,  Professor  Fitch  preached  and  pub- 
lished his  discourses  on  the  nature  of  sin,  in 
which  he  advanced  the  position  that  all  sin  con- 
sists in  the  voluntary  transgrcssio?i  of  known 
law.  This  was  regarded  by  many  as  a  virtual 
denial  of  original  sin  and  native  depravity  as 
maintained  by  Calvinists.  These  discourses 
were  reviewed  by  Dr.  Green  ii^  the  Christian  Ad- 
vocate. Professor  Fitch  replied  to  the  Review. 
Meanwhile  young  men  began  to  issue  from  the 
New  Haven  school,  and  to  proclaim  the  discov- 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  11 

eries  of  their  teacher.  In  this  way  very  consid- 
erable alarm  was  created  in  some  quarters.  Still 
those  who  were  dissatisfied  dreaded  an  explosion 
which  should  hazard  the  peace  of  the  churches, 
and  refrained  from  publishing  their  views;  and 
all  hope  of  avoiding  a  public  controversy  was  not 
given  up  till  Dr.  Taylor  published  his  Concio  ad 
Clerum.  Some  account  of  this,  and  the  contro- 
versy which  it  occasioned,  I  will  give  you  in  my 
next  letter. 

Yours  very  affectionately. 


LETTER  II. 


February  13,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

Dr.  Taylor's  "  Concio  ad  Clerum"  was  preach- 
ed in  the  Chapel  of  Yale  College  on  the  evening 
of  Commencement,  Sept.  10,  1828.  It  was  soon 
after  published.  This  was  the  commencement 
of  the  public  controversy  in  New  England.  The 
object  of  the  sermon  was,  to  exhibit  and  establish 
the  author's  views  of  the  doctrine  of  native  de- 
pravity ;  it  was  apparent  from  the  whole  strain  of 
the  sermon,  that  the  preacher  was  conscious  that 
the  views  which  he  was  exhibiting  were  different 
from  those  which  were  commonly  received.  He 
attempted  to  demolish  what  he  called  "  very  com- 
mon, but  groundless  assumptions — assumptions 
which,  so  long  as  they  are  admitted  and  reasoned 
upon,  must  leave  the  subject  involved  in  insuper- 
able difficulties."  In  one  of  his  notes,  after  stat- 
ing the  different  forms  of  the  doctrine  of  deprav- 
ity, which  he  supposed  to  be  held  by  the  ortho- 
dox, placing  that  form  of  it  which  he  adopted 
last,  he  says,  "  Those  who  reject  the  last  form  of 
it,  and  adopt  either  of  the  preceding  forms,  will, 


NEW    HAVExN    THEOLOGY.  13 

it  is  hoped,  favor  the  world  with  some  better  ar- 
guments on  the  subject  than  have  hitherto  been 
furnished."  This  was  throwing  down  the  gaunt- 
let and  challenging  a  controversy.  But  I  must 
give  you  some  account  of  the  sermon. 

The  text  was  Eph.  ii.  3:  Anctioerehy  nature 
cidldren  of  wrath  even  as  others.  The  doctrine 
of  the  text,  he  stated  to  be,  "  that  the  entire  mor- 
al depravity  of  man  is  by  nature."  The  state- 
ment of  this  doctrine  seemed  to  give  promise 
that  he  was  about  to  exhibit  the  common  views 
on  this  subject.  But  in  his  explanations  of  the 
nature  of  depravity,  and  of  the  sense  in  which  it 
is  by  nature,  he  was  understood  to  advance  prin- 
ciples utterly  inconsistent  with  his  main  proposi- 
tion— principles  which  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  is  in  man  no  natural  hereditary  pro- 
pensity to  sin,  and  that  there  was  no  real  con- 
nexion betw^een  the  sin  of  Adam  and  that  of  his 
posterity.  Moral  depravity  he  defines  to  be,  *'  a 
man's  own  act,  consisting  of  a  free  choice  of 
some  object  rather  than  God,  as  his  chief  good  ; 
or  a  free  preference  of  the  world  and  worldly 
good,  to  the  will  and  glory  of  God."  By  man- 
kind being  depraved  by  nature,  he  says,  "  I  do 
not  mean  that  their  nature  is  itself  sinful,  nor 
that  their  nature  is  the  physical  or  efficient  cause 
of  their  sinning;  but  I  mean  that  their  nature  is 
the  occasion  or  reason  of  their  sinning;  that  such 
is  their  nature,  that  in  all  the  appropriate  circum- 
stances of  their  being,  they  will  sin,  and  only 
sin."  But  he  elsewhere  maintains,  that  all  men 
come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature  in  kind 
as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created,  and  which 
the  Child  Jesus  possessed. 


14  ORIGIN    AND    PROGIlEriS 

If  this  be  true,  it  is  certainly  difficult  to  see 
how  their  nature  can  be  in  imy  sense  the  cause 
or  reason  of  their  sinning ;  or  how  there  can  be 
any  hereditary  corruption  of  nature,  or  any  real 
connexion  between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  that  of 
his  posterity.  Towards  the  close  of  the  sermon, 
in  reply  to  the  inquiry,  why  God  permitted  man 
to  sin,  he  says,  "  Do  you  know  that  God  could 
have  done  better,  better  on  the  whole,  or  better, 
if  he  gave  him  existence  at  all,  even  for  the  indi- 
vidual himself  I  The  error  lies  in  the  gratuitous 
assumption,  that  God  could  have  adopted  a  mor- 
al system,  and  prevented  all  sin,  or  at  least,  the 
present  degree  of  sin." 

This  subject  he  resumes  in  a  note,  and  pro- 
ceeds at  some  length,  to  show  that  the  reason 
why  God  does  not  prevent  all  sin  in  the  moral 
universe  and  make  all  his  rational  creatures  holy 
and  happy,  is,  that  it  is  not  possible  for  him  to  do 
it.  He  says,  "If  holiness  in  a  moral  system  be 
preferable  on  the  whole  to  sin  in  its  stead,  why 
did  not  a  benevolent  God,  were  it  possible  to  him, 
prevent  all  sin,  and  secure  the  prevalence  of  uni- 
versal holiness?  Would  not  a  moral  universe  of 
perfect  holiness,  be  happier  and  better  than  one 
comprising  sin  and  its  miseries  ?  And  must  not 
infinite  benevolence  accomplish  all  the  good  it 
can?  Would  not  a  benevolent  God  then,  had  it 
been  possible  to  him  in  the  nature  of  things,  have 
secured  the  existence  of  universal  holiness  in  his 
moral  kingdom?"  Again  he  says,  "  Who  does 
most  reverence  to  God,  he  who  supposes  that 
God  would  have  prevented  all  sin  in  his  moral 
universe,  but  could  not ;  or  he  who  affirms  that 
he  could  have  prevented  it,  but  icoidd  not?" 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  15 

This  note  gave  great  dissatisfaction,  and  was 
extensively  regarded  as  a  virtual  denial  of  the 
Omnipotence,  and  universal  Providence  of  God, 
and  as  being  utterly  subversive  of  tlie  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  the  divine  decrees.  It  called  forth, 
as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  mention  hereafter, 
the  ]ettei;s  of  Dr.  Woods  to  Dr.  Taylor,  which 
were  published  in  1830.  This  sermon  was  re- 
viewed by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Harve}^  The  reviewer 
points  out  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  peculiar- 
ities of  sentiment  contained  in  the  sermon,  and 
attempts  to  show  that  they  are  inconsistent  both 
with  the  Bible,  and  with  the  writings  of  the  stan- 
dard orthodox  New  England  divines.  To  this 
review  a  reply  was  published  in  the  Christian 
Spectator,  ascribed,  at  first,  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Por- 
ter, of  Farmington,  but  ascertained  afterwards  to 
have  been  written  principally  by  Professor  Good- 
rich. It  comprised  the  substance  of  his  lecture 
to  the  College  Students,  in  1821,  of  which  some 
notice  was  taken  in  my  last  letter. 

In  this  reply  the  following  principles  are  clear- 
ly maintained,  viz :  That  infants  possess  no 
moral  character — that  they  sustain  precisely  the 
same  relation  to  the  moral  government  of  God, 
as  brute  animals — that  sulTering  and  death  are  no 
more  proof  of  sin  in  them  than  in  brutes — that 
salvation  by  Christ  in  their  case  denotes  deliver- 
ance from  the  future  existence  of  sin  and  its  con- 
sequences, and  that  it  is  proper  to  baptize  them, 
not  because  they  need  sanctification,  but  because 
they  will  need  it,  if  they  live  to  become  moral 
agents.  The  fact  that  all  men  become  sinners 
is  accounted  for  in  the  following  manner  :  "A 
cliild  enters  the  world  with  a  variety  of  appetites 


16 


ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 


and  desires,  which  are  generally  acknowledged 
to  be  neither  sinful  nor  holy.  Committed  in  a 
state  of  utter  helplessness  to  the  assiduity  of  pa- 
rental fondness,  it  commences  existence,  the 
object  of  unceasing  care,  watchfulness,  and  con- 
cession to  those  around  it.  Under  such  circum- 
stances it  is,  that  the  natural  appetites  are  first 
developed,  and  each  advancing  month  brings 
new  objects  of  gratification.  The  obvious  con- 
sequence is,  that  self-indulgence  becomes  the 
master  principle  in  the  soul  of  every  child,  long 
before  it  can  understand  that  this  self-indulgence 
will  interfere  with  the  rights,  or  intrench  on  the 
happiness  of  others.  Thus  by  repetition  is  the 
force  of  constitutional  propensities  accumula- 
ting a  bias  towards  self-gratification,  which  be- 
comes incredibly  strong,  before  a  knowledge  of 
duty  or  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  can  possibly 
have  entered  the  mind.  That  moment,  the  com- 
mencement of  moral  agency  at  length  arrives." 

Thus  the  universal  sinfulness  of  mankind  is 
accounted  for,  not  from  any  corruption  of  nature 
derived  from  Adam,  but  from  the  circumstances 
in  which  mankind  are  placed  in  early  infancy. 
An  able  answer  to  this  article  was  published,  sup- 
posed to  have  been  written  by  Dr.  Harvey,  to 
which  Dr.  Taylor  made  a  short  reply.  The  con- 
troversy thus  far,  was  confined  principally  to^the 
doctrine  of  native  depravity,  although  the  note  in 
Dr.  Taylor's  sermon  respecting  God's  ability  to 
prevent  sin,  was  not  passed  over  without  due  an- 
imadversion. 

You  will  be  interested  to  know  what  were  the 
views  of  your  friend  Mr.  Nettleton,  at  this  stage 
of  the  controversy.     The  foUowinof  extract  of  a 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  17 

letter  written  by  him  to  Dr.  Beecher  at  this  peri- 
od, will  give  you  some  information.  The 
letter  is  dated  at  Enfield,  Mass,  Sept.  18,  1829. 

"  While  at  Amherst,  I  read  through  Dr.  Tay- 
lor of  Norwich,  and  much  of  Edwards  in  reply. 
And  I  must  say,  that  so  far  as  I  understand  the 
subject,  the  sentiments  of  our  New  Haven  breth- 
ren, are  more  in  accordance  with  the  former, 
than  with  the  latter.  And  so  far  as  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Bible  is  concerned,  brother  Tay- 
lor's students,  some  of  them  at  least,  (whether 
they  arc  conscious  of  it  or  not,  I  cannot  say,)  in 
every  important  particular,  are  fully  with  Dr. 
Taylor  of  Norwich,  and  at  war  with  Edwards. 
The  Reviewer  of  Taylor  and  Harvey  does  not 
give  us  the  meaning  of  the  texts  which  seem  to 
cross  his  path  ;  but  he  has  adopted  principles 
which  are  at  war  with  all  that  Edwards  has  writ- 
ten on  original  sin,  and  the  nature  of  regenera- 
tion. If  the  sentiments  contained  in  that  Re- 
view be  correct,  then  Edwards  was  wrong  in  his 
interpretation  of  every  text  in  his  piece  on  ori- 
ginal sin.  Brother  Taylor  has  not  come  to  the 
most  important  part  of  his  work — to  give  us  the 
meaning  of  the  Bible.  After  abandoning  impu- 
tation, and  what  he  calls  physical  depravity, 
we  shall  be  compelled  to  adopt  the  sentiments 
of  Dr.  Taylor  of  Norwich,  and  genuine  Ar- 
minianism,  or  actual  sin  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  soul,  or  deny  that  infants  need  re- 
demption by  Christ,  and  regeneration  by  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit ;  or  if  they  do  need  redemption,  it  must 
be  a  redemption  from  something  which  is  not 
sinful  in  any  sense,  and  if  they  need  regeneration, 
it  must  be  a  change  of  something  which  is  not 
2* 


18  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

sinful  in  any  sense.  If  the  soul  be  innocent,  it 
can  be  redeemed  from  nothing,  and  can  never 
join  the  song  of  the  redeemed,  "  unto  him  that 
loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own 
blood."  If  the  soul  be  innocent,  it  can  be 
regenerated,  only  for  the  worse.  Then,  if  you 
doubt,  as  some  are  beginning  to  do,  whether  the 
soul  commences  at  birth,  would  it  not  be  idle  to 
reason  about  the  nature  of  that  which  has  no  ex- 
istence. To  admit  the  necessity  of  redemption 
by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  of  regeneration  by 
the  supernatural  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
of  something  of  whose  nature  we  know  nothing, 
and  of  whose  existence  we  doubt,  is  bad  philoso- 
phy as  well  as  bad  theology.  I  say  these  things 
to  show  that  brother  Taylor  cannot  stand  where 
he  is.  His  students,  some  of  them  at  least,  do 
not  take  the  ground  assumed  in  his  printed  ser- 
mon, that  infants  need  redemption  and  regene- 
ration. When  interrogated  by  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  *' Have  infants  souls?"  the  answer 
sometimes  is,  "  1  do  not  know."  "  Do  they  need 
redemption?"  "  I  do  not  know."  *'  Is  it  prop- 
er to  pray  for  them  ?"  "I  do  not  know."  "  What 
is  the  meaning  of  such  and  such  texts?"  "  I  do 
not  know."  Now  I  do  not  wonder  that  minis- 
ters are  alarmed  at  the  New  Haven  Theology. 
Interrogatories  like  those  above  will  always  be 
put  to  his  students,  when  examined  by  ecclesias- 
tical bodies.  And  since  the  alarm  occasioned 
by  the  recent  publications,  I  anticipate  that  min- 
isters will  be  better  prepared,  more  critical  and 
sensitive  than  ever,  on  all  these  points.  And  if 
Dr.  Taylor  cannot  furnish  his  pupils  with  plain 
answers,   and  answers,  too,  that  shall  comport 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  19 

with  his  printed  sermon,  I  think  they  will  be  in  a 
worse  predicament  than  ever. 

''  I  have  just  received  the  last  number  of  the 
Christian  Spectator,  and  Harvey's  and  Taylor's 
pamphlets,  issued  on  commencement  day.  I  have 
read  them  through,  but  have  not  time  or  room 
to  give  my  thoughts  on  paper.  Harvey  has 
adopted  nearly  my  views,  and  Taylor  in  some 
places  admits,  and  then  again  rejects  them.  Now 
"  he  admits  that  infants  are  sinners  from  their 
birth,"  p.  30 ;  and  this  is  in  perfect  accordance 
with  his  admission  that  they  have  souls — "  need 
redemption  by  Christ" — "regeneration  by  the 
Holy  Spirit."  And  now  why  hesitate  to  admit 
that  death  in  their  case  is  *'  by  sin  ?"  But  this  he 
will  not  admit,  but  tries  to  evade  it,  and  to  prove 
their  innocence  refers  to  Deut.  i.  39  :  "  Moreover, 
your  little  ones  which  ye  said  should  be  a  prey, 
and  your  children,  which  in  that  day  had  no 
knmvlcdgc  between  good  and  evil,  they  shall  go 
in  thither."  These  "little  ones  and  children" 
were  all  from  twenty  years  old  and  under.  See 
Num.  xxxii.  11.  They  were  not  summoned  to 
the  field  of  battle,  to  go  iip  and  take  possession 
of  Canaan,  and  hence  it  is  said,  they  *'  had  no 
knowledge  between  good  and  evil,"  quoad  hoc. 
If  that  proves  any  thing  to  brother  Taylor's  pur- 
pose, it  proves  that  all  mankind  under  twenty 
years  of  age,  are  not  moral  agents,  and  are,  of 
course,  innocent.  He  quotes,  also,  and  so  does 
Professor  Stuart,  Jonah,  iv.  11.  I  have  formerly 
heard  these  same  texts  quoted  for  the  same  pur- 
pose by  Methodists,  and  other  Arminians,  and  I 
feel  disposed  to  give  the  old  answer.  1.  It  wants 
proof  that  they  were  infants.     2.    "Cannot  dis- 


20  NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY. 

cern  between  their  right  hand  and  their  left"  is  a 
proverbial  expression,  denoting  great  ignorance 
in  adults,  and  is  no  where  applied  to  infants.  3. 
It  is  incredible  that  Ninevah  should  contain 
120,000  infants.  4.  It  would  better  accord  with 
the  book  of  Jonah,  and  with  our  Lord's  account 
of  their  ignorance,  to  admit  that  the  120,000  em- 
braced the  entire  population  who  repented  at  the 
preaching  of  Jonah,  and  that  the  city  was  spared 
on  account  of  their  repentance,  and  not  for  the 
sake  of  infants,  thus  making  void  their  repen- 
tance." 

We  have  now  arrived  at  a  period  in  the  history 
of  the  New  Haven  speculations  when  the  dis- 
satisfaction became  quite  extensive.  Several 
events  occurred  in  the  course  of  this  year,  which 
it  will  be  important  to  notice,  and  of  which  I  will 
give  you  some  account  in  my  next  letter. 

Yours,  very  affectionately. 


LETTER   III. 

February  17, 1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

In  the  year  1829,  while  the  controversy  men- 
tioned in  my  last  letter  was  going  on,  a  series  of 
articles  was  published  in  the  Christian  Spectator, 
on  the  Means  of  Regeneration,  purporting  to  be 
a  Review  of  Dr.  Spring's  dissertation  on  that 
subject.  In  these  articles,  which  were  written 
by  Dr.  Taylor,  the  writer  maintains,  that  antece- 
dent to  regeneration,  the  selfish  principle  is  sus- 
pended in  the  sinner's  heart,  and  that  then, 
prompted  by  self-love,  he  uses  the  means  of  regen- 
eration with  motives  that  are  neither  sinful  nor 
holy.  The  manner  in  which  the  subject  is  dis- 
cussed, seemed  to  many,  to  be  utterly  inconsis- 
ent  with  the  views  commonly  entertained  by  the 
orthodox  on  this  fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
Christian  faith,  Mr.  Nettleton,  in  his  letter  to 
Dr.  Beecher,  an  extract  from  which  was  inserted 
in  my  last  letter,  says  in  reference  to  this  subject: 

"  As  to  Dr.  Taylor's  last  piece  on  the  means 
of  regeneration,  it  seems  to  me  that  he  has 
turned  the  thing  bottom  upwards.  In  his  des- 
cription of  the  means  of  regeneration,  he  includes 
the  exercises  or  evidences  of  a  new  heart.     The 


22  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity  against  God,  sus- 
pends all  its  enmity,  and  selfishness,  and  sin,  and 
then  goes  to  work  on  the  principle  of  self-love. 
How  long  the  sinner  continues  in  this  state  of 
neutrality  he  does  not  inform  us.  But  no  mat- 
ter ;  the  sinner  does  not  use  the  means  of  a  new 
heart  until  the  old  heart  is  gone,  and  he  is  in  a 
state  favorably  disposed,  like  the  prodigal  son 
after  he  came  to  himself.  No  sinner  ever  did 
what  brother  Taylor  considers  as  using  the  means 
of  regeneration,  until  God  had  first  regenerated 
him.  The  distinction  between  supreme  selfish- 
ness and  self-love,  in  the  impenitent,  exists  only 
in  theory,  never  in  matter  of  fact.  Suppose  a 
sinner  should  go  to  brother  Taylor  and  address 
him  as  follows  :  '  I  have  always  been  dissatisfied 
with  the  old  doctrine  of  the  entire  sinfulness  of 
the  doings  of  the  unreorenerate,  and  therefore 
nave  done  nothing  to  make  a  new  heart ;  but 
when  I  saw  your  views  I  was  pleased  ;  I  found 
that  I  was  right,  that  sin  could  never  be  the 
means  of  holiness,  but  that  the  exercise  of  self- 
love  might  be.  Accordingly,  I  have  suspended 
all  my  selfishness,  and  have  not  committed  a  sin- 
gle sin  for  some  time  past,  and  have  been  to  work 
on  your  plan,  from  a  desire  for  happiness,  or  a 
principle  of  self-love.  Thus  I  have  made  me  a 
new  heart.'  How  would  Dr.  Taylor  be  pleased 
with  such  an  account.  To  me  it  sounds  like 
the  talk  of  a  Pharisee.  No  sinner  ever  suspen- 
ded his  selfishness,  until  subdued  by  divine  grace. 
The  carnal  mind,  the  enmity  against  God,  the 
heart  of  stone,  remains,  until  slain,  subdued,  or 
taken  away,  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

This  letter  was  written  Sept.  18,  1829.   Three 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  23 

numbers  of  the  treatise  on  the  means  of  regene- 
ration had  then  been  published.  A  fourth  num- 
ber appeared  in  December,  designed  to  obviate 
objections,  containing  some  statements  which, 
in  the  view  of  many,  were  utterly  inconsistent 
with  what  had  been  published  in  the  previous 
numbers.  Dr.  Porter,  of  Andover,  speaking  of 
this  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  says : 

"  Dr.  Taylor's  closing  number  on  means,  was 
a  designed  modification  of  the  former  ones, 
partly  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Beecher.  The 
latter  told  him  that  he  had  employed  terms  badly 
in  speaking  of  the  '  suspension  of  selfishness.' 
All  that  Dr.  Taylor  means,  said  he  to  me,  is  that 
'  the  carnal  mind  is  held  in  check,  or  does  not 
act^  and  not  that  it  is  extinct,'  'While  this  car- 
nal mind  is  thus  checked,  has  it  moral  qualities?' 
said  I.  '  Doubtless,'  he  replied.  '  Is  it  sinful, 
or  holy,  or  neither?'  (Pause.)  'The  man  is 
doubtless  a  sinner,'  said  he.  '  Can  one  who  pug- 
naciously and  ostentatiously  maintains  that  all 
sin  consists  in  action,  maintain  too  that  a  carnal 
mind  is  sinful  when  its  action  has  ceased?'  (No 
reply.)  " 

These  articles  on  the  means  of  regeneration, 
created  serious  alarm  in  the  minds  of  many 
ministers,  and  were  the  foundation  of  the  con- 
troversy between  Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Tyler, 
which  commenced  near  the  close  of  the  year 
1829.  But  before  I  proceed  to  give  an  account 
of  this  controversy,  I  will  mention  some  events 
which  occurred  previously  in  the  course  of  this 
year.  In  May,  1829,  Dr.  Porter  wrote  his  letter 
to  Dr.  Beecher,  which  has  been  recently  pub- 
lished,  and  which  you  have    seen.     The  deep 


24  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

solicitude  expressed  in  that  letter,  in  view  of  the 
new  theological  speculations  which  were  coming 
up  in  New  England,  was  not  confined  to  him, 
but  existed  in  the  minds  of  many  of  his  breth- 
ren. In  October,  of  the  same  year,  he  thus 
wrote  to  a  friend  : 

"  From  some  remarks  which  were  dropped 
when  you  and  brother  Humphrey  were  in  my 
study,  I  have  supposed  that  both  you  and  he  have 
much  the  same  views  of  Dr.  Taylor's  speculative 
theory  that  I  have.  That  he  was  very  much  dis- 
satisfied last  May,  I  know  from  his  strong  decla- 
rations ;  and  his  disquietude,  I  presume,  cannot 
have  been  diminished  by  the  subsequent  charac- 
ter of  the  Christian  Spectator.  Since  that  time 
too,  I  have  known  that  such  men  as  the  Prince- 
ton Professors,  Dr.  Spring,  Dr.  Porter  of  Catts- 
kill,  Dr.  Hyde  of  Lee,  Dr.  Richards  of  Auburn,  Dr. 
Griffin,  &c.,  are  seriously  dissatisfied.  Without 
time  to  enter  into  particulars,  my  difficulty  is,  that 
his  note  to  his  sermon,  the  Concio  ad  Clerum,  his 
views  of  native  depravity,  of  means  and  regene- 
ration, are  virtually  Arminian  ;  at  least,  they  will 
be  so  understood  as  to  bring  up  a  race  of  young 
preachers  thoroughly  anti-Calvinistic.  The  spirit 
besides,  is  like  the  he-goat  of  Daniel,  bold  and 
pushing— impatient  of  inquiry,  or  hesitation  in 
other  men.  Now,  what  is  to  be  done  ?  Shall 
we  sustain  our  Calvinism,  or  see  it  run  down  to 
the  standard  of  Methodists,  and  laxer  men?  It 
is  time  that  a  note  '  of  remonstrance  be  struck 
up  somewhere.'  " 

It  has  been  currently  reported  in  some  quar- 
ters, that  all  the  dissatisfaction  with  the  New 
Haven  Theology,  has  been  produced  by  secret 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  25 

whisperings,  and  rumors  set  afloat  by  one  or  two 
individuals  who  were  personal  enemies  to  Dr. 
Taylor.  No  representation  could  be  more  untrue. 
Who  were  the  men  that  in  1829  were  seriously 
dissatisfied?  Dr.  Porter  has  mentioned  the 
names  of  a  few.  Many  others  of  similar  char- 
acter might  be  added  to  the  list.  And  were 
these  men  personal  enemies  to  Dr.  Taylor?  Or 
did  they  form  their  opinions  of  his  theology  from 
floating  rumors  ?  No,  their  dissatisfaction  was 
the  result  of  a  candid  and  careful  perusal  of  his 
writings,  and  those  of  his  associates. 

In  September  of  this  year,  a  little  previous  to 
the  date  of  the  letter  from  which  the  above  ex- 
tract is  taken,  (at  the  time  of  the  anniversary  at 
Andover,)  a  Conference  was  held  at  the  house 
of  Dr.  Porter,  between  the  New  Haven  Divines 
and  several  other  ministers  of  distinction,  with  a 
view,  if  possible,  of  coming  to  a  friendly  under- 
standing, and  of  preventing  the  necessity  of  any 
further  public  controversy.  It  was  fondly  hoped 
that  explanations  might  be  given,  and  concessions 
made  which  would  relieve  the  minds  of  those 
who  were  dissatisfied.  At  this  meeting  were 
present.  Dr.  Taylor  and  Professor  Goodrich  from 
New  Haven,  Dr.  Beecher,  the  Andover  Profes- 
sors, Dr.  Church,  Dr.  Spring,  Dr.  Cogswell, 
Mr.  Nettleton,  Dr.  Hewit,  and  some  others  whose 
names  I  am  not  now  able  to  specify.  The  re- 
sult of  this  interview  was  not  as  happy  as  some 
had  anticipated.  The  explanations  of  the  New 
Haven  brethren  so  far  from  removing  the  dissat- 
isfaction which  existed,  served  rather  to  increase 
it.  That  the  mind  of  Dr.  Porter  was  not  at  all 
relieved,  is  evident  from  the  letter  from  which 
3 


26  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

the  above  extract  is  taken,  and  which  was  written 
only  a  few  days  after  the  interview.  It  is  known 
that  others  who  were  present  felt  as  he  did. 
They  were  fully  convinced  that  a  public  contro- 
versy could  not  be  avoided.  As  much  as  they 
dreaded  the  evil  connected  with  such  a  contro- 
versy, it  was  their  solemn  conviction  that  they 
were  called  upon  by  the  great  head  of  the  Church 
to  take  an  open  and  decided  stand  against  these 
speculations,  and  to  contend  earnestly  for  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  Dr.  Woods 
at  this  time  came  to  the  determination  to  publish 
his  letters  to  Dr.  Taylor. 

Shortly  after  this  interview,  Mr.  Nettleton,  be- 
ing at  Andover,  dropped  a  line  to  Dr.  Beecher, 
requesting  him  to  invite  the  orthodox  ministers 
of  Boston  to  meet  at  his  house,  at  a  given  time, 
as  he  wished  very  much  to  see  them.  At  the 
time  appointed  he  was  there.  He  stated  to  his 
brethren  that  he  was  about  to  leave  New  England 
for  the  South,  and  that  as  reports  were  in  circu- 
lation that  he  accorded  in  sentiment  with  the 
New  Haven  divines,  and  the  influence  of  his 
name  was  thus  made  use  of  to  give  currency  to 
their  peculiar  views ;  he  wished  them  distinctly 
to  understand  that  he  did  not  adopt  those  views 
and  never  had  adopted  them  ;  and  that  he  should 
feel  it  to  be  his  duty  on  all  suitable  occasions,  to 
bear  his  testimony  against  them.  He  said  that 
such  were  his  convictions  of  the  tendency  of 
those  views  to  corrupt  revivals  and  produce 
spurious  conversions,  that  if  all  New  England 
should  go  over,  he  should  prefer  to  stand  alone, 
and  he  requested  his  brethren  to  make  known 
his  views  as  they  had  opportunity,  that  his  name 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    TIIEOLOfiV.  y< 

might  not  be  made  use  of  to  sanction  sentiments 
which  he  did  not,  and  could  not  receive.  Mr. 
Evarts,  and  Dr.  Cornelius  were  at  this  meeting, 
and  entered  iuUy  into  the  views  of  Mr.  Nettleton. 
What  course  Dr.  Beecher  pursued  at  this  time, 
and  at  some  other  times,  I  may  perhaps  have  oc- 
casion to  mention  in  a  future  letter. 

I  have  mentioned  that  the  controversy  be- 
tween Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Tyler  commenced  the 
latter  part  of  this  year.  Dr.  Tyler  was  at  this 
time  pastor  of  a  Church  in  Portland,  (Me.)  He 
was  a  native  of  Connecticut,  and  spent  the  first 
part  of  his  pastoral  life  in  that  State,  during 
which  time  Dr.  Taylor  was  one  of  his  intimate 
friends.  He  had  been  absent  from  the  State 
about  nine  years,  and  although  he  had  heard  of 
the  dissatisfaction  which  existed  in  Connecticut 
and  elsewhere,  in  regard  to  Dr.  Taylor's  Theo- 
ogical  views,  he  was  inclined  to  believe  that  it 
was  in  a  great  measure  groundless.  In  the  sum- 
mer of  1829,  he  visited  Connecticut  and  collect- 
ed all  the  pamphlets  which  had  been  published 
in  relation  to  this  controversy.  On  his  return  to 
Portland,  he  sat  down  to  a  careful  examination 
of  what  had  been  published.  The  result  was  a 
full  conviction  that  the  New  Haven  brethren  had 
adopted  opinions  which  were  erroneous  and  of 
dangerous  tendency.  The  state  of  his  mind  at 
this  time  will  be  seen  from  the  following  extract 
of  a  letter  to  a  friend,  dated  Oct.  8,  1829 : 

"Will  you  believe  it,  when  your  letter  arrived, 
I  was  poring  over  the  New  Haven  Divinity,  as  I 
have  been  for  several  days  past.  I  should  like  to 
read  to  you  some  remarks  which  I  have  written 
on  brother  Taylor's  Review  of  Dr.  Spring.  That 
Review  has  opened  my  eyes.     Unless  I  am  great- 


28 


NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY. 


ly  mistaken,  there  is  much  error  in  that  Review  ; 
and  the  error  regards  principles  of  the  first  im- 
portance. When  I  was  in  Connecticut,  I  had 
not  thought  much  on  the  controverted  points,  and 
I  was  disposed  to  regard  them,  as  of  but  little 
practical  importance.  But  since  I  returned 
home  I  have  carefully  read  what  has  been  pub- 
lished, and  have  come  to  the  very  conclusion 
which  you  have  expressed  in  your  letter  that 
*  there  is  a  radical  departure  from  our  views  of 
the  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible.'  These  breth- 
ren cannot  stand  where  they  are.  They  are  at- 
tempting to  strike  out  a  middle  course  between 
Calvinism  and  Arminianism,  but  they  must  go 
over  to  the  one  side  or  the  other.  Now  what 
shall  be  done?  What  was  the  result  of  the  con- 
sultation at  Andover  ?  Is  the  thing  to  be  hushed, 
or  is  there  to  be  a  public  discussion?  I  have 
been  exceedingly  distressed  for  a  few  weeks  past 
in  reflecting  on  this  subject.  What  is  to  become 
of  New  England?  Must  we  fight  over  the  bat- 
tles of  former  generations?  And  that  too  with 
brethren  in  whom  we  have  had  the  highest  confi- 
dence, and  with  whom  we  have  long  acted  in 
concert." 

About  this  time  Dr.  Tyler  wrote  to  Dr.  Tay- 
lor, and  expressed  with  great  frankness  all  his 
fears.  Several  letters  passed  between  them  ;  but 
the  explanations  of  Dr.  Taylor  so  far  from  re- 
lieving his  mind,  increased  his  dissatisfaction ; 
and  he  finally  consented  at  the  earnest  solicita- 
tion of  several  of  his  brethren,  to  publish  his 
strictures  on  Dr.  Taylor's  treatise  on  the  means 
of  regeneration.  Some  account  of  this  contro- 
versy, I  will  give  you  in  my  next  letter. 

Yours  very  alTectionately. 


LETTER    IV. 


February  21,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

Dr.  Tyler  published  his  Strictures,  Dec.  1829. 
He  says  in  his  Preface  : 

"  The  writer  of  the  following  Strictures  is 
conscious  of  no  unfriendly  feelings  towards  the 
conductors  of  the  Christian  Spectator;  and  es- 
pecially towards  the  individual  who  is  generally 
known  to  be  the  writer  of  the  Review.  He  has 
ever  regarded  him  with  the  highest  respect,  and 
cherished  towards  him  the  warmest  sentiments  of 
personal  friendship.  Until  recently,  he  has  had 
the  fullest  confidence  in  the  general  correctness 
of  his  theological  views.  But  recent  publica- 
tions, and  particularly  the  articles  noticed  in  the 
following  sheets,  have  produced  the  conviction, 
that  in  some  things  he  has  swerved  from  the  faith 
of  our  Pilgrim  fathers.  Not  that  he  has  formally 
denied  any  one  doctrine  of  the  orthodox  system, 
but,  it  is  believed,  that  in  his  statements  and  ex- 
planations, he  has  adopted  principles,  which  will 
lead,  by  inevitable  consequence,  to  the  denial  of 
important  doctrines,  and  that  his  speculations  will 
3* 


30  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

pave  the  way  for  the  gradual  influx  of  error  upon 
the  American  Churches,  disastrous  to  the  inter- 
ests of  evangelical  religion.  Nothing  but  the 
fullest  conviction  of  the  dangerous  tendency  of 
these  speculations,  and  the  necessity  of  some 
counteracting  influence,  could  have  induced  the 
writer  to  appear,  in  this  manner,  before  the  pub- 
lic. But  personal  considerations  are  to  be  waved, 
when  the  interests  of  truth  and  piety  are  con- 
cerned." 

In  prosecuting  his  object,  he  in  the  first  place, 
attempts  to  correct  some  errors  in  regard  to  the 
meaning  and  explanation  of  terms.  He  objects, 
to  the  meaning  which  Dr.  Taylor  attaches  to  the 
term  regeneration.  He  uses  it  to  denote  "  that 
act  of  the  will  or  heart  which  consists  in  prefer- 
ence of  God  to  every  other  object;  making  it  of 
course,  an  act  of  the  sinner,  and  not  exclusively 
the  work  of  God.  He  objects  also  to  the  dis- 
tinction which  Dr.  Taylor  makes  between  the 
popular  and  theological  use  of  the  term  regenera- 
tion. In  the  popular  sense.  Dr.  Taylor  supposes 
it  to  denote  a  process,  or  series  of  acts  and  states 
of  mind,  and  to  include  all  those  acts  which 
constitute,  using  the  means  of  regeneration. 
He  objects  also  to  the  sense  in  which  Dr.  Tay- 
lor uses  the  term  selfishness.  According  to  him, 
selfishness  consists  not  in  a  supreme  regard  to 
our  own  happiness,  but  in  the  love  of  the  world, 
or  in  prefering  the  world  to  God,  as  our  portion 
or  chief  good.  He  makes  a  distinction  between 
selfishness  and  self-love,  and  supposes  that  the 
former  may  be  suspended  in  the  unrenewed 
heart,  and  that  the  sinner  influenced  by  the  lat- 
ter, may  use  the  means  of  regeneration  with  mo- 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  31 

tives  which  are  neither  sinful  nor  holy.  An 
ultimate  regard  to  our  own  happiness,  according 
to  him,  is  not  selfishness,  but  self-love,  a  principle 
by  which  all  moral  beings  of  whatever  character, 
are  actuated.  He  says,  indeed,  "  Of  all  specific 
voluntary  action,  the  happiness  of  the  agent,  in 
some  form,  is  the  ultimate  end ;"  thus  confound- 
ing as  Dr.  Tyler  shows,  all  distinction  between 
holiness,  and  sin,  making  both  proceed  from  the 
same  principle  of  action. 

In  regard  to  the  suspension  of  the  selfish  prin- 
ciple, Dr.  Tyler  asks,  "  But  how  is  the  selfish 
principle  suspended?  Is  it  suspended  by  the 
interposition  of  God,  or  by  an  act  of  the  sinner? 
Not  by  the  interposition  of  God,  for,  if  I  under- 
stand the  Reviewer,  he  supposes  that  those  men- 
tal acts  which  constitute  using  the  means  of  re- 
generation, precede  the  act  of  divine  interposi- 
tion. Besides,  if  God  by  an  act  of  his  grace, 
suspends  the  selfish  principle,  what  is  this  but 
regeneration  ?  Does  the  sinner  while  under  the 
control  of  supreme  selfishness,  and  consequently 
from  a  selfish  motive  resolve  not  to  be  selfish. 
This  would  seem  to  represent  selfishness  as  divid- 
ed against  itself,  '  an  absurdity  sufficiently  palpa- 
ble to  silence  even  Jewish  cavilling.'  Is  the 
selfish  principle  suspended  without  any  act  of  the 
mind  ?  What  is  the  cause  of  this  wonderful 
phenomenon  ?  Or  has  it  no  cause  ?  Is  it  an 
accident  which  may,  or  may  not  happen,  and 
which,  nevertheles's  must  happen  in  regard  to 
every  one  of  the  human  race  before  he  can  be 
regenerated?" 

He  elsewhere   shows  that   there  is    not,  and 


32  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

cannot  be,  any  such  thing  as  the  suspension  of 
the  selfish  principle  in  the  unrenewed  heart. 

^'  It  is  admitted,"  he  says,  "  that  there  is  no 
holiness  in  man  antecedent  to  regeneration. 
Consequently,  there  is  no  love  to  God,  and  no 
true  benevolence.  By  what  principle  then,  is  the 
sinner  actuated  ?  By  self-love,  it  is  said.  But  is 
it  possible  that  the  sinner  while  destitute  of  love 
to  God,  and  of  every  spark  of  genuine  benevo- 
lence, should  love  himself  at  all  and  not  love 
himself  supremely  ?  What  other  object  does  he 
regard  more  than  self?  Not  God,  nor  the  hap- 
piness of  the  universe.  What  other  object  does 
he  regard  at  all  ?  Nothing,  except  as  it  tends  to 
promote  his  ultimate  end,  viz.  his  own  happiness. 
This  is  his  sole  object  of  pursuit.  This  fills  all 
his  eye,  and  engrosses  all  his  thoughts  and  all  his 
purposes.  To  this  he  is  supremely  devoted. 
Consequently  he  is  supremely  selfish.  It  is  im- 
possible to  conceive  of  a  being  more  so.  Every 
moral  being  destitute  of  benevolence,  and  actu- 
ated by  self-love,  is  necessarily  a  selfish  being. 
According  to  this  supposition,  self-love  is  the 
governing  principle  of  his  mind,  and  if  this  does 
not  constitute  selfishness,  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive of  any  thing  which  can  constitute  it.  To 
suppose  therefore,  selfishness  to  be  suspended  in 
the  natural  heart,  and  self-love  to  exist  and  oper- 
ate, is  to  suppose  an  absolute  impossibility.  If 
one  is  suspended,  the  other  must  be  also." 

After  exhibiting  fully  Dr.  Taylor's  theory.  Dr. 
Tyler  proposes  seven  queries,  which  are  intended 
to  present  in  a  single  view  its  legitimate  conse- 
quences. His  first  query  is,  "  Whether  accord- 
ing to  Dr,  Taylor's  representations,  regeneration 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  33 

is  not  a  gr ad  11  ell  and  progressive  work?"  The 
second,  "  Whether  the  theory  in  question  does 
not  involve  the  inconsistency  of  supposing  that 
the  heart  is  changed  antecedent  to  regeneration  ?" 
The  third,  "  What  becomes  of  the  sinner's  con- 
viction of  sin,  while  using  the  means  of  regene- 
ration ?"  The  fourth,  "  Whether  the  theory  in 
question,  does  not  dispense  with  the  necessity  of 
divine  influence  in  regeneration?"  The  fifth, 
*'  Whether  Dr.  Taylor  does  not  represent  the 
sinner  as  laboring  under  a  natural  inability  to  do 
his  duty?"  The  sixth,  ''Whether  he  does  not, 
in  effect,  deny  the  doctrine  of  sovereign  and  dis- 
tinguishing grace?"  The  seventh,  "Whether 
this  theory,  if  drawn  out  in  detail,  and  inculcated 
by  the  teachers  of  religion,  has  not  a  direct  ten- 
dency to  stifle  conviction  of  sin,  and  produce 
spurious  conversions?" 

The  strictures  were  reviewed  in  the  Christian 
Spectator,  by  Dr.  Taylor.  Dr.  Tyler  published 
a  vindication  of  the  strictures.  There  was  a 
very  brief  notice  of  the  vindication  in  the  Spec- 
tator, with  an  intimation  that  it  might  be  fol- 
lowed by  a  more  extended  review.  But  that 
review  has  never  appeared. 

To  give  you  an  idea  of  the  impression  made 
upon  some  minds  by  this  discussion,  I  quote  the 
following  extract  from  a  letter  of  Dr.  Porter, 
dated  Charleston  (S.  C.)  May  1,  1830. 

"  A  letter  from  brother  Stuart,  soon  after  I 
left  you,  had  this  passage.  '  Dr.  Tyler  has  pub- 
lished his  pamphlet  which  has  made  an  end  of 
tlie  matter  as  to  brother  Taylor's  regeneration 
by  self-love — a  full  end.  There  is  no  redemp- 
tion.    All  the  fog  is  blown  away,  and  we  have  at 


34 


ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 


last,  a  clear  and  sheer  regeneration  of  the  natural 
man  by  himself,  stimulated  by  self-love,  made 
out  to  be  the  scheme  of  brother  Taylor.  There 
is  no  getting  aside  of  it.'  I  quote  this  because 
it  accords  so  perfectly  with  my  own  views,  and 
because  brother  Stuart  has  been  claimed  by  Dr. 
Taylor,  as  on  his  side. 

"  I  take  it  for  granted  that  Professor  Stuart  can 
have  no  objections  that  the  above  extract  be  seen, 
because  it  perfectly  accords  with  what  he  has  ex- 
pressed in  conversation  to  many  individuals,  and 
because  I  presume  he  is  willing  that  his  views 
should  be  known;  especially  since  the  influence 
of  his  name  has  been  so  extensively  employed  to 
give  sanction  to  sentiments,  which  he  not  only 
does  not  believe,  but  rejects  with  abhorrence." 

In  the  same  letter  from  which  the  above  is 
extracted,  Dr.  Porter  thus  speaks  of  the  reply  to 
Dr.  Tyler's  strictures,  *'  On  returning  to  this 
city,  I  find  in  the  Spectator  for  March,  Dr.  Tay- 
lor's review  of  Dr.  Tyler's  strictures,  and  though 
I  can  hardly  say  I  am  disappointed,  I  am  troubled 
in  spirit  at  the  character  of  this  review.  I  am 
sorry  to  see  a  temper  in  some  respects  so  excep- 
tionable! Indeed,  I  am  completely  nonplussed  to 
see  what  Dr.  Taylor  vv^ould  be  at.  He  began 
writing  avowedly  to  correct  what  he  thought  com- 
mon errors  of  our  theologians  :  and  next  he  sup- 
ports his  own  views  by  quoting  these  theologians 
as  concurring  in  sentiment  with  himself.  If  Dr. 
Taylor  is  radically  wrong,  it  is  a  great  evil.  If 
he  is  right,  and  yet  uses  language,  so  as  to  lead 
others  wrong  in  their  own  system,  or  wrong  in 
their  views  of  his,  it  is  still  a  great  evil.  What 
can  be  done  with  a  man  who  wijl  tprn  upon  you 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  35 

at  every  corner,  with  'you  mistake  my  mean- 
ing?' I  answer,  let  liim  be  candidly,  kindJy, 
and  solemnly  pressed  farther.  His  vieus  of  self- 
love  cannot  stand  inquiry.  His  true  benevolence 
— love  to  God — in  its  most  elementary  form,  is 
what?  Regard  to  one's  own  happiness.  Fuller 
in  his  'Gospel  its  own  witness,'  shows  this  to  be 
an  infidel  sentiment;  and  Smalley  shows  that 
Satan  is  innocent,  if  an  ultimate  regard  to  self,  is 
no  sin." 

In  his  published  letters  on  Revivals  of  Reli- 
gion, Dr.  Porter  has  some  excellent  remarks  on 
this  subject.  I  have  room  only  for  a  short 
extract.  After  quoting  two  or  three  passages 
from  Dr.  Taylor's  Treatise  on  the  means  of  re- 
generation he  says,  "  This  language  certainly  is 
not  so  precise  as  one  could  wish,  but  it  seems  un- 
avoidable to  understand  it  as  meaning,  that  re- 
gard to  his  own  happiness  is  the  primary  and 
proper  spring  of  action  in  every  man ;  that  his 
moral  character  is  determined  solely  by  the  object 
of  his  choice,  or  his  estimate  of  his  own  inter- 
ests as  correct  or  incorrect;  that  if  he  chooses 
the  world  as  his  chief  good,  from  self-love,  he  is 
an  unholy  man;  but  if  he  chooses  God  from 
self-love,  he  is  a  regenerate  man.  And  by  that 
voluntary  act,  in  which  he  first  prefers  God  to  the 
world,  froQi  regard  to  his  own  interest,  he  be- 
comes regenerate.  Any  man  may  use  language 
so  as  not  to  express  his  own  meaning.  But  de- 
liberately to  admit  that  self-love  must  be  the 
primary  ground  of  moral  affection,  is  to  super- 
cede all  intelligent  discussion,  ■dhoutrcgeneratioii, 
or  any  of  the  kindred  doctrines  of  grace.  This 
one  principle  sweeps  the   whole  away.     There 


36  NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY. 

remains  no  radical  distinction  of  character  be- 
tween the  saint  and  the  sinner.  The  most  de- 
praved individual  on  earth,  or  even  among  apos- 
tate spirits,  doubtless  is  the  centre  of  his  affec- 
tions. And  though  he  may  have  perverted  views 
of  his  own  interest,  he  means  notwithstanding 
to  act,  and  does  act,  from  a  primary  regard  to 
himself  And  if  this  is  the  highest  principle  of 
action  to  a  holy  being,  then  an  angel  and  a  devil 
stand  on  the  same  ground  as  to  moral  character; 
(in  other  words)  there  is  no  distinction  between 
holiness  and  sin.  Besides,  this  theory  would 
split  the  moral  system  into  as  many  jarring  parts 
with  as  many  centres  of  'primary'  affections  as 
it  contains  individuals.  It  would  set  every  moral 
agent  at  variance  with  every  other  moral  agent, 
and  with  God  himself.  Whereas  the  simple  pre- 
cept, 'Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart' — sets  up  another  standard  in  every 
bosom.  It  establishes  a  common  centre  of  mor- 
al affection  to  the  universe  of  moral  agents,  and 
binds  the  hearts  of  all  to  each  other,  and  to  the 
throne  of  Jehovah." 

I  have  made  free  use  of  the  thoughts  of  Dr. 
Porter,  because  he  was  extensively  known  and 
highly  esteemed  at  the  South ;  and  because,  in 
his  theological  views,  he  may  be  regarded  as  a 
fair  representative  of  a  large  portion  of  the  min- 
isters of  New  England.  1  propose  in  my  next 
letter,  to  give  you  some  accoi^nt  of  the  contro- 
versy between  Dr.  Woods  and  Dr.  Taylor. 

Yours  very  affectionately. 


LETTER  V. 

Februarj',  23,  183t. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

Dr.  Woods  published  his  letters  to  Dr.  Taylor 
in  1830.  These  letters  were  occasioned  by  the 
note  to  Dr.  Taylor's  Concio  ad  Clerum,  in  which 
he  attempts  to  account  for  the  existence  of  sin, 
by  supposing  that  its  prevention  in  a  moral  sys- 
tem is  impossible  to  God. 

In  his  first  letter,  he  makes  some  remarks  on 
the  proper  manner  of  conducting  theolocrical 
discussion,  the  duty  and  responsibility  of  Theo- 
logical Professors,  the  danger  of  giving  too  much 
prominence  to  philosophical  speculations  in  mat- 
ters of  religion,  and  the  importance  of  conform- 
ing exactly  to  the  word  of  God.  In  the  second 
letter  he  attempts  to  ascertain  the  precise  mean- 
ing of  Dr.  Taylor's  language.  He  understands 
him  to  maintain  these  two  positions,  "  First : 
Tliat  sin  is  not  the  necessary  means  of  the  great- 
est good^  and  as  such,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  not  on 
the  whole^  preferable  to  holiness  in  its  stead. 
Second,  That  in  a  moral  system,  God  could  not 
prevent  all  sin,  nor  the  present  degree  of  it.''  In. 
4 


OO  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

the  third  letter,  he  considers  the  question  wheth- 
er there  is  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  moral 
agency  which  renders  it  impossible  for  God  to 
prevent  sin,  and  shows  that  Dr.  Taylor's  theory 
implies  the  independence  of  moral  agents.  On 
this  point  he  says  : 

"  You  hold  that  such  is  the  nature  of  moral 
agency,  that  it  was  utterly  impossible  for  God  to 
prevent  its  perversion  ;  that  if  moral  beings  ex- 
isted, it  was  unavoidable  that  some  of  them  should 
sin  ;  and  that  Omnipotence  itself  could  not  exert 
an  influence  upon  them  sufficient  to  prevent  this. 
Let  God  create  moral  beings  any  way  he  pleases  ; 
let  him  place  them  in  the  most  favorable  circum- 
stances, exert  upon  them  the  highest  possible  in- 
fluence, and  extend  over  them  the  most  constant 
and  most  powerful  protection  ;  let  him  watch 
them  with  his  Omniscient  eye,  and  shield  them 
with  his  Omnipotent  arm  ;  still,  according  to  your 
theory,  they  will,  at  least  some  of  them,  fall  into 
sin.  You  think  there  is  in  moral  agency  itself,  a 
power  so  resistless,  that  it  is  impossible  for  God 
himself,  however  strong  may  be  his  desire,  to 
prevent  the  existence,  or  even  the  present  degree 
of  sin." 

In  the  fourth  letter,  he  shows  that  God  has  a 
perfect  control  over  the  minds  of  all  rational 
creatures,  without  in  the  least  degree  impairing 
their  moral  freedom.  He  also  refutes  the  asser- 
tion of  Dr.  Taylor,  that  the  common  theory 
limits  the  goodness  of  God.  In  the  fifth  letter, 
he  continues  his  examination  of  Dr.  Taylor's 
reasoning  from  the  nature  of  moral  agency,  and 
shows  that  to  prevent  the  perversion  of  moral 
agency,  is  not  necessarily  to  destroy  it.     In  this 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGV.  39 

letter  he  adduces  direct  proof  that  God  is  able 
to  convert  more  sinners  than  are  converted.  1. 
From  his  Omnipotence.  2.  From  what  he  has 
done.  3.  From  the  requisition  of  prayer.  4. 
From  the  representation  of  scripture,  that  God 
converts  men  according  to  his  will  or  pleasure. 

In  the  sixth  letter,  he  considers  the  question 
whether  God  could  have  secured  the  holiness  of 
any  moral  being  without  the  influence  of  moral 
evil.  He  also  attempts  to  ascertain  the  meaning 
of  the  position  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of 
the  greatest  good,  and  in  what  sense  it  is  true. 
Not  that  sin  is  good  in  its  own  nature  and  ten- 
dency, but  that  it  is  so  overruled  and  counteract- 
ed as  to  be  made  to  subserve  a  benevolent  end. 
In  the  seventh  letter,  he  answers  the  objection  of 
Dr.  Taylor,  that  if  sin  is,  on  the  whole,  for  the 
best,  it  is  our  duty  to  sin,  and  God  cannot  be 
sincere  in  forbidding  it.  He  repels  the  insinua- 
tion that  the  orthodox  consider  sin  as  "  excellent 
in  its  nature  and  relations."  On  this  point  he 
says : 

"  Now  Dear  Brother,  who  holds  the  opinion 
which  you  here  oppose  and  contrast' with  your 
own?  Who  among  all  the  ministers  and  friends 
of  Christ,  especially  among  the  orthodox  minis- 
ters and  christians  in  this  country,  ever  enter- 
tained an  opinion  so  impious  and  shocking  as 
that  God  considered  sin  as  '  excellent  in  its  nature 
and  relations,'  or  purposed  it  as  such.  Such  a 
sentiment,  I  am  bold  to  say,  can  be  found  in  no 
orthodox  writer,  and  must  be  instantly  repelled 
by  every  pious  heart.  Why  then,  I  ask,  do  you 
use  language  which  certainly  implies,  that  this 
opinion  is  held  by  those  from  whom  you  differ  ? 


40  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

If  you  mean  to  convey  this  impression,  then  I 
am  constrained  to  say,  that  no  calumniator  of 
the  orthodox  ever  charged  them  more  injuri- 
ously." 

In  the  eighth  and  last  letter,  he  considers  the 
practical  influence  of  Dr.  Taylor's  theory,  as  it 
affects  our  views  of  the  power  of  God — the  bless- 
edness of  God — the  system  of  his  works — the 
extent  of  his  dominion — the  happiness  of  the 
good — submission — prayer — and  dependence  on 
divine  grace.  He  then  closes  with  a  friendly  ex- 
postulation with  Dr.  Taylor,  in  regard  to  his  spec- 
ulations generally.  I  should  be  glad  to  quote 
largely  from  this  letter,  but  I  have  room  only  for 
a  few  brief  extracts. 

He  says,  "  The  unqualified  language  which 
you  sometimes  employ  respecting  the  natural 
state,  the  free  will  and  powers  of  man,  the  nature 
and  necessity  of  divine  influence,  the  manner  of 
regeneration,  and  other  points  alluded  to,  is  not  I 
apprehend,  in  accordance  either  with  the  letter  or 
the  spirit  of  Revelation,  and  will  have  an  unpro- 
pitious  influence  upon  the  characters  of  men, 
upon  revivals  of  religion,  and  upon  the  interests 
of  the  church.  But  on  these  subjects  I  would 
not  enlarge  at  present,  as  I  have  intended  to 
give  my  views  respecting  them  more  fully  in 
another  way.  But,  my  brother,  you  cannot  sure- 
ly think  it  strange,  that  serious  disquietude  and 
alarm  should  exist  among  us,  in  consequence  of 
what  you  have  published  in  relation  to  these  sub- 
jects. For  you  well  know  that  Calvinists,  though 
not  afraid  of  free  discussion,  are  sincerely  and 
firmly  attached  to  their  articles  of  faith,  and  are 
not  apt  to  be  carried   about  with  the  changing 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  41 

opinions  of  others.  Whether  right  or  wrong, 
we  have  been  accustomed  to  consider  the  con- 
troversy which  early  arose  in  the  Church  between 
the  Orthodox  and  Pelagians,  and  which  after  the 
Reformation,  was  continued  between  the  Lu- 
therans and  Calvinists  on  one  side,  and  the  Ar- 
minians  or  Remonstrants  on  the  other,  as  of  rad- 
ical importance. 

"  Now  how  would  you  expect  us  to  feel,  and 
ivith  our  convictions,  how  ought  we  to  feel,  when 
a  brother  who  has  professed  to  be  decidedly  or- 
thodox, and  has  had  our  entire  confidence,  and  is 
placed  at  the  head  of  one  of  our  theological 
schools,  makes  an  attack  upon  several  of  the  arti- 
cles of  our  faith,  and  employs  language  on  the  sub- 
ject of  moral  agency,  free  will,  depravity,  divine 
influence,  &c.,  which  is  so  like  the  language  of 
Arminians  and  Pelagians,  that  it  would  require 
some  labor  to  discover  the  difference  ?  And  how 
would  it  be  natural  for  us  to  feel,  when  such  a 
brother  adopts,  on  several  controverted  subjects, 
the  language  and  the  opinions  which  have  been 
adopted  by  the  Unitarians;  and  when  we  find 
that  Unitarians  themselves  understand  him  as  ar- 
guing with  them,  and  making  such  argument  a 
subject  of  exultation  ?  Would  it  not  betray  an 
indifference  and  remissness  in  us,  which  you 
would  think  unaccountable,  if  such  things  ex- 
cited no  solicitude  in  us  respecting  the  cause 
which  ought  ever  to  be  dearest  to  our  hearts]" 

'*  I  have  not  adverted  to  this  noticeable  agree- 
ment in  phraseology,  and  in  reasoning  between 
you  and  those  I  have  mentioned,  for  the  purpose 
of  stigmatizing  your  theory,  or  as  proof  that  it 
is  erroneous." 
4* 


42  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

*'  But  when  we  find  you,  on  several  interesting 
points,  siding  with  these  sects  against  the  ortho- 
dox, siding  too  with  Dr.  John  Taylor  against 
Edwards,  on  some  of  the  main  questions  at  issue 
between  them,  and  when,  in  addition  to  this,  we 
find  you  on  some  points  coinciding  so  nearly 
with  the  views  of  the  French  Philosophers,  and 
shall  I  say,  on  other  points,  throwing  out  the  very 
objections  which  we  have  so  often  heard  from 
cavillers  against  orthodoxy,  it  would  certainly 
be  strange,  if  none  of  our  sensibilities  were 
touched,  and  no  concern  or  fear  excited  within 
us  in  regard  to  the  tendency  of  your  specula- 
tions. I  acknowledge  that  on  this  subject,  we 
may  be  mistaken,  and  that  our  fear  may  be 
groundless.  And  we  will  be  anxiously  looking 
for  evidence  to  satisfy  us  that  it  is  so.  To  such 
evidence,  we  will  open  every  avenue  to  our  un- 
derstandings and  our  hearts. 

*'  But  I  feel  myself  constrained  to  say,  that  the 
theory  which  you  adopt,  in  contradistinction  to 
the  common  theory,  appears  to  me,  generally,  so 
far  as  1  understand  it,  to  be  unscriptural,  and  of 
dangerous  tendency.  And  the  more  I  examine 
it,  the  farther  I  am  from  being  satisfied  with  it. 
And  this  is  the  case  with  the  orthodox  communi- 
ty to  an  extent,  as  I  have  reason  to  think,  far 
beyond  your  apprehension.  Compared  with  the 
whole  body  of  Congregational  and  Presbyterian 
ministers,  there  are  very  few  who  embrace  your 
opinions;  and  though  my  knowledge  may  be  de- 
fective, yet  among  all  the  Professors  of  our  The- 
ological Seminaries  and  Presidents  of  our  Col- 
leges, I  do  not  know  of  one,  whose  views  coin- 
cide with  yours. 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  43 

"  But  although  such  has  been  the  case  with  me 
and  my  brethren  in  the  same  office  generally,  we 
have  been  slow,  perhaps  too  slow,  to  make  a  pub- 
lic declaration  of  our  dissent.  So  far  have  we 
been  from  acting  the  part  of  assailants,  that  we 
have  been  very  reluctant  to  come  even  to  the 
work  of  self-defence."  "  In  the  mean  time,  you 
and  your  associates  have  been  intent  upon  your 
object,  and  by  preaching  and  conversation,  and 
pamphlets,  especially  by  a  popular  periodical, 
have  been  zealously  laboring  to  propagate  your 
tenets.  At  length,  in  conformity  with  the  wishes 
of  many,  far  and  near,  I  have  been  induced  to 
unite  with  those  respected  ministers  who  have 
preceded  me,  not,  be  it  remembered,  in  making 
an  attack  on  you,  as  has  been  very  incautiously 
said,  but  in  repelling  your  attack  upon  us  and 
our  brethren,  and  in  defending  our  common  and 
long  established  faith  against  what  we  conceive 
to  be  innovation  and  error. 

"  I  most  heartily  regret  the  introduction  of  a 
controversy,  which  may  turn  off  the  minds  of 
many  from  the  great  interests  of  religion,  fill  our 
Churches  with  strife,  and  hinder  the  spread  of 
the  Gospel.  But  for  the  evils  of  such  a  contro- 
versy, who  is  responsible  ?"  "  If  after  all  the  ef- 
forts I  have  made,  I  have  misapprehended  the 
true  sense  of  the  passages  in  your  sermon,  to 
which  I  have  attended,  I  shall  hope  for  such 
explanations  from  you,  as  will  effectually  correct 
my  mistake.  And  you  will  keep  in  mind,  that 
the  mistake,  if  there  is  one,  exists  amono^  your 
readers  extensively.  Do  you  not  owe  it  then  to 
the  public,  to  give  a  clear,  unambiguous,  and 
full  exhibition  of  the  peculiarities  of  your  system, 


44  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

SO  that  there  may  no  longer  be  any  complaint  of 
obscurity,  or  any  suspicion  of  concealment." 

"  If  it  be  true  that  your  system  agrees  with 
that  of  Edwards  and  D wight  and  New  England 
ministers  generally,  the  public  should  be  satis- 
fied of  this.  Or  if  a  new  system  is  to  be  intro- 
duced, and  a  new  sect  formed,  with  a  new  name, 
and  new  measures  to  extend  itself,  and  a  new 
and  separate  interest ;  then  the  public  ought  to 
have  the  means  of  understanding  exactly  what 
the  new  system  is,  and  what  is  to  be  the  new  sect. 
The  difficulty  lies  not  at  all  between  you  and  me, 
personally,  but  between  you,  and  the  Christian 
community.  And  if  you  will  in  any  way  satisfy 
them  that  you  do  not  entertain  the  views  which 
have  been  imputed  to  you;  if  you  will  satisfy 
them,  that  you  agree  in  your  doctrinal  belief,  as 
you  profess  to  do,  with  Edwards  and  Dwight ;  I 
and  others  shall  have  nothing  more  to  do,  but  to 
signify  our  joy,  that  our  mistake  has  been  cor- 
rected, and  our  entire  confidence  in  you  restor- 
ed ;  and  so  the  whole  matter  may  come  at  once 
to  a  happy  termination." 

These  letters  were  read  with  deep  interest  by 
the  ministers  of  New  England  ;  and  were  exten- 
sively regarded  as  a  complete  refutation  of  the 
theory  of  Dr.  Taylor.  They  were  also  admired 
for  the  candor  and  Christian  spirit  by  which  they 
were  signally  characterised.  Such,  however,  was 
not  the  judgment  passed  upon  them  by  the  New 
Haven  divines.  In  their  review  of  them  in  the 
Christian  Spectator,  they  speak  of  them  as  being 
filled  with  evasions  and  misrepresentations,  and 
as  being  pervaded  by  a  ''  personal  incivility," 
which  is  "  without  a  parallel  in  our  Churches  for 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  45 

the  last  thirty  years."  It  may  be  interesting  to 
know  the  opinion  of  an  impartial  critic  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith, 
in  the  London  Eclectic  Review,  after  speaking 
in  high  commendation  of  the  reasoning  of  Dr. 
Woods,  in  these  letters,  adds,  "  The  soundness 
of  Dr.  Woods'  argument,  so  far  as  it  is  opposed 
to  the  theory  of  Dr.  Taylor,  is  not  the  only  merit 
which  these  letters  possess.  They  afford  an  ex- 
cellent example  of  the  close  and  pressing  pursuit 
of  an  antagonist,  without  (as  we  can  perceive) 
the  slightest  improper  feeling.  There  is  no 
vaunting,  no  contempt ;  there  are  no  anathemas, 
and  no  imputations  ;  but  many  serious,  and  sea- 
sonable cautions,  the  fruit  of  experience  and 
sound  piety,  addressed  to  one  who,  as  it  seems, 
although  a  teacher,  has  much  to  learn  of  that 
wisdom  which  should  belong  to  men  in  responsi- 
ble stations." 

In  the  same  number  of  the  Christian  Specta- 
tor, which  contained  the  review  of  Dr.  Woods' 
letters,  there  was  a  review  of  Bellamy's  Treatise 
on  the  Wisdom  of  God  in  the  Permission  of  Sin, 
in  which  the  writer  attempts  to  show,  that  Dr. 
Bellamy  maintained  the  theory  of  Dr.  Taylor; 
whereas  it  was  the  express  object  of  that  treatise 
to  overthrow  this  very  theory.  This  misrepre- 
sentation or  perversion  of  the  sentiments  of  the 
venerable  dead,  is  not  among  the  least  grounds 
of  complaint  against  the  New  Haven  divines. 
Yours  affectionately. 


LETTER    VI. 


February  23, 1837, 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

In  the  early  part  of  the  year  1832,  Dr.  Hawes, 
of  Hartford,  addressed  a  letter  to  Dr.  Taylor, 
informing  him  that  there  were  suspicions  in  the 
public  mind,  in  regard  to  his  soundness  in  the 
faith,  and  requesting  him  to  "  make  a  frank  and 
full  statement  of  his  religious  views,"  To  this 
letter  Dr.  Taylor  replied,  and  the  two  letters 
were  published  in  the  Connecticut  Observer,  of 
February  20th,  1832.  It  was  supposed  by  the 
public,  that  the  letter  of  Dr.  Taylor,  as  it 
appeared  in  print,  contained  the  "  frank  and 
full  statement,"  which  he  had  made  to  Dr. 
Hawes,  at  his  particular  request ;  but  it  was  after- 
wards ascertained  that  some  part  of  the  original 
letter  was  suppressed. 

When  Dr.  Hawes  was  inquired  of  in  regard 
to  this  fact,  he  acknowledged  that  the  letter  con- 
tained some  things  which  he  deemed  it  not  pru- 
dent to  publish,  and  that  he  wrote  to  Dr.  Taylor, 
and  obtained  permission  to  strike  out  the  objec- 
tionable parts.     Thus  it  appeared,  that  the  great 


NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  47 

object  of  this  correspondence  was  not  so  much 
to  obtain  from  Dr.  Taylor  a  *'  frank  and  full 
statement  of  his  religious  views,"  as  to  obtain 
such  a  statement  as  would  remove  from  the  pub- 
lic mind  the  suspicions  which  had  been  created 
by  his  previous  publications.  The  plan,  how- 
ever, did  not  succeed.  The  letter,  as  it  was 
published,  was  far  from  giving  satisfaction.  It 
\vould  probably  have  been  less  satisfactory  if  it  had 
been  published  entire  ;  for  I  have  understood  by 
an  individual  who  saw  the  manuscript,  that  those 
parts  which  were  suppressed,  contained  the  most 
"  frank  and  full  statement"  of  Dr.  Taylor's 
peculiar  views. 

This  letter  contained  a  creed  of  eleven  arti- 
cles, expressed  for  the  most  part,  in  unexcep- 
tionable language.  But  to  this  were  subjoined 
certain  explanations,  which  seemed  to  many, 
directly  to  contradict  the  articles  of  the  creed ; 
or  at  least,  to  make  it  evident,  that  while  Dr. 
Taylor  employed  orthodox  language,  he  must 
affix  to  that  language  a  meaning  entirely  different 
from  that  in  which  it  is  commonly  received. 

Some  remarks  on  this  letter  were  published  by 
Dr.  Tyler,  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  a  period- 
ical published  in  Boston.  I  will  insert  a  few 
extracts  from  these  remarks.     He  says  : 

*'  I  have  never  supposed  that  Dr.  Taylor  inten- 
ded to  deny  any  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the 
Calvinistic  system.  I  have  always  supposed  that 
he  would  be  willing  to  suscribe  just  such  a  creed 
as  that  which  he  has  given  us  in  his  letter.  Is  it 
asked  then,  what  are  the  grounds  of  my  fears  ? 
I  will  frankly  state  them.  Any  one,  at  all  ac- 
quainted with  ecclesiastical   history    must  have 


48  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

observed,  that  the  great  errors  which  have  infest- 
ed the  church,  have  usually  crept  in  unawares. 
They  have  originated  in  speculations,  and  .'phi- 
losophical theories,'  which,  at  first,  were  not 
intended  to  call  in  question  the  commonly  re- 
ceived doctrines,  but  to  explain  them,  and  relieve 
them  of  difficulties.  The  process  has  been  a 
gradual  undermining  process,  and  such,  it  has 
appeared  to  me,  is  the  tendency  of  Dr.  Taylor's 
speculations.  That  his  theories  do  involve  prin- 
ciples subversive  of  some  of  the  most  prominent 
and  important  doctrines  of  his  creed,  I  shall 
endeavor  to  show  in  the  following  remarks  : 

*'  I.  The  doctrine  of  Decrees. 

*'  Dr.  Taylor  says,  '  I  believe  that  the  eternal 
purposes  of  God  extend  to  all  actual  events,  sin 
not  excepted  ;  or  that  God  foreordained  whatso- 
ever comes  to  pass,  and  so  executes  these  purpo- 
ses as  to  leave  the  free  and  moral  agency  of  man 
unimpaired.' 

''  Yet  in  the  same  letter  Dr.  Taylor  says  : 

'* '  I  do  not  believe  that  sin  can  be  proved  to 
be  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good, 
and  that  as  such  God  prefers  it  on  the  whole,  to 
holiness  in  its  stead  ;  or  that  a  God  of  sincerity 
and  truth  punishes  his  creatures  for  doing  that 
which,  on  the  whole,  he  prefers  they  should  do. 
But  I  do  believe  that  it  may  be  true,  that  God, 
all  things  considered,  prefers  holiness  to  sin  in 
all  instances  in  which  the  latter  takes  place.' 

"  How  are  these  two  parts  of  his  creed  to  be 
reconciled?  If  it  '  be  true  that  God  all  things 
considered,  prefers  holiness  to  sin  in  all  instances 
in  which  the  latter  takes  place,'  it  cannot  be 
true  that  God  has  purposed  or  foreordained  what- 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  49 

soever  comes  to  pass ;  for,  according  to  this  rep- 
resentation, it  was  from  eternity  God's  will,  or 
choice,  all  things  considerfd,  that  sin  should  not 
exist  in  a  single  instance.  Consequently,  it  could 
not,  in  any  sense,  be  his  purpose,  or  his  choice, 
that  it  should  exist.  To  say  that  God  prefers, 
all  things  considered,  i\\?ii  sin  should  not  exist, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  say  that  he  has  purposed 
or  foreordained  that  it  shall  exist,  is  a  palpable 
contradiction.  It  is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  God 
chooses  and  does  not  choose  the  same  thing,  at 
the  same  time."  "  Again  :  It  is  a  part  of  Dr. 
Taylor's  theory,  that  '  God  could  not  prevent  all 
sin,  or  the  present  degree  of  sin  in  a  moral  sys- 
tem.' '  He  would  have  prevented  all  sin  in  his 
moral  universe,  but  could  not.'  Yet  he  foreor- 
dained whatsoever  comes  to  pass;  that  is,  he 
foreordained  that  which  he  would  have  prevented 
if  he  could  ! !  What  can  be  a  plainer  contra- 
diction? 

"  II.  The  doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 

*'  Dr.  Taylor  says,  '  I  believe  that  all  man- 
kind, in  consequence  of  the  f^ill  of  Adam,  are 
born  destitute  of  holiness,  and  are  by  nature 
totally  depraved  ;  in  other  words,  that  all  men 
from  the  commencement  of  moral  agency,  do, 
without  the  interposition  of  divine  grace,  sin, 
and  only  sin,  in  all  their  moral  conduct.  I  also 
believe,  that  such  is  the  nature  of  the  human 
mind,  that  it  becomes  the  occasion  of  universal 
sin  in  all  the  appropriate  circumstances  of  their 
existence,  and  that  therefore  they  may  properly 
be  said  to  be  sinners  by  nature.' 

"  To  these  sentiments  understood  according  to 
their  plain  and  obvious  import,  I  can  most  cheer- 
5 


50  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

fully  subscribe.  But  how  are  these  declarations 
to  be  understood,  when  taken  in  connection  with 
other  things  which  Dr.  Taylor  has  said  on  this 
subject.  1  have  always  supposed  that  when  it  is 
said,  that  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of  Adam  all 
have  become  sinners,  the  language  is  intended 
to  convey  the  idea  that  there  is  a  real  connection 
between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  that  of  his  poster- 
ity; and  that  when  it  is  said,  all  are  hy  nature 
sinners,  the  meaning  is,  that  there  is  something 
in  our  nature  which  is  truly  the  cause  or  reason 
why  all  men  become  sinners :  consequently, 
that  human  nature  is  not  what  it  would  have 
been,  if  sin  had  not  existed,  but  has  undergone 
some  change  in  consequence  of  the  original 
apostacy."  "  Now  the  question  is,  is  the  nature 
of  man  different  from  what  it  would  have  been, 
if  sin  had  never  entered  the  world  ?  Is  there  any 
thing  in  human  nature  Avhich  is  hereditary  and 
the  consequence  of  the  original  apostacy  ?  Or  is 
every  thing  pertaining  to  the  nature  of  man,  the 
immediate  production  of  creative  power  ?  And 
do  mankind  come  into  the  world  now,  with  the 
same  nature  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  crea- 
ated,  and  which  the  child  Jesus  possessed  1  If 
so,  then  mankind  are  not  hy  nature  sinners. 
Their  nature  is  in  no  sense  the  cause  or  reason 
of  their  sinning ;  for  Adam  was  not  by  nature  a 
sinner  ;  nor  was  the  child  Jesus.  They  were  by 
nature  holy.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  perceive  ac- 
cording to  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  there  is 
any  real  connection  between  the  sin  of  Adam  and 
the  sin  of  his  posterity.  Now,  unless  I  have  en- 
tirely mistaken  the  import  of  Dr.  Taylor's  spec- 
ulations, he  does  maintain  that  the  moral  nature 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  51 

of  all  accountable  beings  is  alike,  and  is  the 
very  nature  which  God  has  given."  In  support 
of  this  declaration,  he  quotes  several  passages 
from  the  Christian  Spectator,  and  concludes  this 
part  of  the  subject,  by  saying:  "  To  what  purpose 
then  are  we  told  that,  in  consequence  of  Adam's 
fall  all  mankind  have  become  sinners — and  that 
they  are  sinners  by  nature,  when  the  whole  is 
virtually  denied  ? 

"  III.  The  Doctrine  of  Regeneration. 

"  Dr.  Taylor  has  expressed  his  belief  in  rela- 
tion to  this  doctrine  in  the  fifth,  sixth,  seventh, 
eighth,  and  ninth  articles  of  his  creed."  "  All 
this  is  very  good  ;  but  this  is  not  all  which  he  has 
written  on  this  subject.  He  has  adopted  theo- 
ries which,  in  the  judgment  of  many,  at  least, 
tend  to  sap  the  foundation  of  this  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith.  Although  he 
explictly  admits  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  regeneration,  yet  in  view  of  many  things 
which  he  has  written,  it  is  difficult  to  see  v/hat 
necessity  there  can  be  for  this  divine  influence." 
"  This  necessity  results  solely  from  the  perverse- 
ness  and  obstinacy  of  the  sinner's  heart.  But, 
according  to  Dr.  Taylor's  theory,  the  perverse- 
ness  and  obstinacy  of  his  heart  are  removed 
antecedent  to  regeneration.  The  selfish  prin- 
ciple is  suspended.  He  ceases  to  sin,  and  ceases 
to  resist.  Every  thing,  indeed,  which  can  be 
rationally  supposed  to  render  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  necessary  in  renewing  the  heart,  is 
removed."  He  shows  also  from  Dr.  Taylor's 
statements,  that  according  to  his  theory,  "  every 
moral  being  chooses  what  he  judges  will  be  most 
for   his  happiness.     The  reason,  therefore,  that 


52  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

the  sinner  prefers  the  world  to  God  is,  that  he 
has  mistaken  the  true  way  of  securing  his  high- 
est happiness.  What  then  is  necessary  to  effect 
his  conversion  ?  Nothing  but  light  to  correct  his 
mistake.  So  soon  as  he  shall  be  convinced  that 
more  happiness  is  to  be  derived  from  God  than 
from  the  world,  self-love  will  prompt  him  to  change 
the  object  of  his  preference  ;  where  then  is  the 
necessity  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
renew  the  heart? 

"  IV.  The  Doctrine  of  Election. 

*'  Dr.  Taylor  says,  '  I  believe  that  all  who  are 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  elected  or  cho- 
sen of  God  from  eternity  that  they  should  be 
holy,  not  according  to  foreseen  faith  or  good 
works,  but  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his 
will.' 

"  This  is  a  full  and  satisfactory  statement  of 
the  doctrine  of  election.  But  how  is  this  to  be 
reconciled  with  other  statements  of  his?  If  it 
be  true  that  God,  '  all  things  conside?^ed,  prefers 
holiness-  to  sin  in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter 
takes  place,'  then  it  must  be  his  choice,  all  things 
considered,  that  all  men  should  become  holy  and 
be  saved,  and  his  infinite  benevolence  will  prompt 
him  io  do  all  in  his  power  io  bring  all  men  to  re- 
pentance ?  What  then  becomes  of  the  doctrine  of 
election  ?  Who  malceth  thee  to  differ?  Not 
God,  truly;  for  if  he  prefers,  all  things  consid- 
ered, holiness  to  sin,  in  every  instance,  he  will  of 
course  do  all  in  his  power  to  make  every  individ- 
ual holy.  It  cannot  be  true  that  he  hath  mercy 
on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  for  he  would  have 
mercy  on  all,  if  he  could.  The  reason  that  a 
part  only  of  the  human   race,  and    not    all,   are 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    TnEOLOGY.  53 

saved,  is  not  because  God  did  not  choose,  all 
things  considered,  that  all  should  be  saved  ;  but 
because  he  was  unable  to  save  all.  He  would 
have  prevented  all  sin  in  his  moral  universe,  but 
could  not.  What,  then,  I  ask  again,  becomes  of 
the  doctrine  of  election?"  Two  or  three  passa- 
ges are  quoted  from  the  Christian  Spectator, 
which  evidently  teach  the  Arminian  view  of  the 
doctrine  of  election,  particularly  the  following  : 

"  The  means  of  reclaiming  grace,,  which  meet 
him  in  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God,  are  those  by 
v/hich  the  Father  draws,  induces  just  such 
jsinners  as  himself  voluntarily  to  submit  to  Christ ; 
ftnd  these  means  all  favor  the  act  of  his  immediate 
submission.  To  this  influence  he  can  yield,  and 
thus  be  drawn  of  the  Father.  This  influence  he 
can  resist,  and  thus  harden  his  heart  against  God. 
Election  involves  nothing  more,  as  it  respects 
his  individual  case,  except  one  fact :  the  certainty 
to  the  divine  mind,  whether  the  sinner  will  yield 
to  the  means  of  grace  and  voluntarily  turn  to 
Crod,  or  whether  he  will  continue  to  harden  his 
heart  till  the  means  of  grace  are  withdrawn." 
See  Christian  Spectator  for  Dec.  1831,  p.  737. 

Dr.  Tyler  closes  with  the  following  remark  : 
''The  reader  will  perceive  that  each  of  the  top- 
ics brought  into  view  in  the  preceding  remarks, 
might  be  made  the  subject  of  extended  discus- 
sion ;  but  my  object  has  been  to  present  a  brief 
general  view  of  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  ten- 
dency of  Dr.  Taylor's  speculations.  I  have  felt 
it  the  more  important  to  do  this  on  account  of 
the  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  convince 
the  public  that  the  points  on  which  Dr.  Taylor 
differs  from  his  brethren  are  of  trifling  conse- 
5* 


54  NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY. 

quence,  as  they  relate  chiefly  not  to  the  doctrines, 
but  to  the  philosophy  of  religion.  But  if  his 
philosophical  theories,  as  I  have  attempted  to 
show,  do  tend  to  sap  the  foundation  of  some  of 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  they  are 
not  to  be  regarded  as  harmless;  nor  ouo-ht  the 
Christian  community  to  slumber,  while  such 
strenuous  efforts  are  making  to  give  them  cur- 
rency in  the  world." 

I  have  made  the  foregoing  extracts  for  the  pur- 
pose of  giving  you  a  general  view  of  the  state  of  the 
controversy  at  this  period,and  of  the  ground  of  dis- 
satisfaction which  extensively  prevailed  in  regard 
to  Dr.  Taylor's  speculations.  The  controversy 
was  carried  on  between  Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Ty- 
ler for  some  time,  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims, 
In  the  mean  time,  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Tyler, 
from  which  the  foregoing  extracts  are  taken, 
were  reviewed  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  for 
September,  1832.  Some  account  of  this  review 
I  will  give  you  in  my  next  letter. 

Yours  affectionately. 


LETTER  VII. 

March  2,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

I  promised  to  give  you  some  account  of  the 
Review  of  Dr.  Tyler's  remarks,  which  was  writ- 
ten by  Dr.  Taylor,  and  which  appeared  in  the 
Christian  Spectator  for  September,  1832.  Dr. 
Porter,  in  a  letter  dated  Charleston,  S.  C,  De- 
cember 8,  1832,  speaking  of  that  Review,  says, 
"  That  Review  surprised  and  pained  me  exceed- 
ingly. Indeed,  it  is  the  most  exceptionable  per- 
formance of  the  kind  that  I  have  read.  The 
temper  of  it  is  unmanly  and  unchristian.  It 
compares  with  some  of  the  sectarian  pamphlets 
on  baptism,  &:.c.,  which  I  read  in  my  boyhood, 
though  I  think  it  beats  them  all."  That  you 
may  be  able  to  judge  of  the  justness  of  these 
remarks,  I  will  give  you  a  few  extracts.  What 
the  reviewer  proposes  is,  to  examine  the  theories 
of  Dr.  Tyler,  in  relation  to  the  depravity  of 
man,  and  the  divine  permission  of  sin.  In  regard 
to  the  first  theory,  he  says : 

"  This  theory  is,  that  the  nature  of  man  since 
the  apostacy  differs  as  realli/  from  his  nature  be- 


56  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

fore  that  event  as  the  nature  of  a  lion  which  leads 
him  to  feed  on  flesh,  differs  from  that  of  the  ox, 
which  leads  him  to  feed  on  grass.  Accordingly, 
he  asks  '  what  inconsistency  is  there  in  suppos- 
ing that  there  is,  in  man  a  native  propensity  to 
evil,  propagated  from  parent  to  child,  like  other 
natural  propensities?'  On  this  theory,  then,  we 
would  offer  the  following  remarks  :  It  exhibits 
God  as  the  responsible  author  of  sin.  We  sup- 
pose Dr.  Tyler  to  believe,  as  others  who  have 
advanced  the  same  theory  maintain,  that  this 
propensity  to  sin  is  itself  sinful ;  or,  as  another 
writer  affirms,  is  the  essence  of  all  sin."  "  God, 
therefore,  according  to  this  theory,  is  therespon-* 
sible  author  of  that  in  man,  in  which  the  essence 
of  all  sin  consists  ;  and  actually  damns  the  soul„ 
for  being  what  he  makes  it,  or  causes  it  to  be  by 
physical  laws.  If  Dr.  Tyler  should  say  that 
the  propensity  to  sin,  of  which  he  speaks, 
is  innocent,  still  man,  as  he  comes  into  being,  is 
doomed  to  sin  by  a  natural  and  fatal  necessity." 
"  With  such  a  propensity,  man  has  not  a  natural 
ability  to  avoid  sin.  This  is  alike  true,  whether 
this  propensity  be  supposed  to  be  sinful  or  inno- 
cent." "  Man,  therefore,  by  the  laws  of  propa- 
gation, is  naturally  unable  to  avoid  sin,  and  to 
become  holy,  and  therefore  is  not  a  moral  agent." 
^*  According  to  Dr.  Tyler's  theory,  sin  must  be 
good  in  itself,  and  the  only  real  good  to  man,  as 
a  moral  being."  "  According  to  Dr.  Tyler's 
philosophy,  man  in  the  act  of  becoming  holy, 
must  be  supremely  selfish.''  "  Dr.  Tyler's  theory 
is  inconsistent  with  undeniable  facts.  Adam 
and  satan,  tvith  his  companions,  all  sinned. 
Whence   came   their   first   propensity    to   sin  ? 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  57 

Whatever  expedient  Dr.  Tyler  may  devise  to 
account  for  the  first  propensity  to  sin  in  these 
creatures  of  God,  one  thing  is  certain,  viz.,  that 
being  without  father  and  without  mother,  they 
did  not  become  the  subjects  of  such  a  propen- 
sity by  propagation."  "According  to  Dr.  Ty- 
ler's theory,  the  divine  lawgiver  seems  to  have 
entirely  mistaken,  in  regard  to  man,  the  proper 
object  of  a  legal  prohibition  and  penalty.  The 
radical  evil  lies  in  the  constitutional  propensities 
which  God  has  given  to  men.  The  divine  law, 
therefore,  it  would  seem,  should  forbid  men  to 
have,  and  punish  them  for  having  those  constitu- 
tional propensities  which  they  derived  exclusively 
from  their  Creator."  "  The  terms  of  salvation, 
and  the  exhibition  of  motives  to  comply  with  them, 
are,  according  to  the  same  theory,  a  mockery." 
*'  The  true  and  only  .reason,  according  to  this 
scheme,  why  sinners  are  lost,  is,  not  that  they  do 
not  act,  but  that  God  does  not."  "  According 
to  Dr.  Tyler's  theory,  what  is  commonly  called 
Regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  unnecessary." 
**  To  sin,  according  to  Dr.  Tyler,  must  be  the 
chief  end  of  man."  "Man's  chief  end  is  not  to 
glorify  God  and  enjoy  him  forever,  and  the  West- 
minster Catechism  is  flatly  contradicted." 

In  regard  to  Dr.  Tyler's  theory  of  the  divine 
permission  of  sin,  he  says,  "  How  is  it  that  those 
are  reproved  who  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  neither  entered  themselves,  nor  suffered  oth- 
ers to  enter,  when  according  to  Dr.  Tyler,  it 
would  prove  a  calamity  on  the  whole,  had  one 
more  sinner  reached  heaven  than  has  reached  it. 
How  is  it  that  God  says  in  Isaiah,  v.  3.,  that  he 

HAS    DONE    ALL    THAT    CAN  BE  DONE  tO   bring  siU' 


58  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

ners  to  repentance,  when  he  could  do  more, 
if  he  would,  and,  would  tlo  more,  did  he 
he  not,  on  the  whole,  prefer  their  continued  sin, 
to  their  repentance  ?  '  My  child,'  says  a  father, 
*  never  steal,  never  lie  ;  I  hav  e  no  pleasure  at  all 
that  you  should,  compared  with  being  honest  and 
true  ;  but  then,  my  child,'  he  proceeds,  '  I  greatly 
prefer,  on  the  ivhole,  that  you  should  steal  and 
lie,  at  least  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  ;  for  stealing 
and  lying  in  these  instances,  will  be  the  best 
things  on  the  whole  which  you  can  do  ;  and  al- 
though I  shall  do  every  thing  that  can  be  done  to 
secure  your  obedience  to  my  law,  yet  T  could  do 
much  more  if  I  would;  and  I  would  do  it,  if  I 
did  not,  on  the  whole,  prefer  your  stealing  and 
lying  to  honesty  and  truth.  I  have  therefore  de- 
termined to  do  that,  and  that  only,  which  will 
secure  your  almost  incessant  stealing  and  lying, 
because  on  the  whole,  these  are  the  best  things 
you  can  do.'  Such  is  God,  according  to  this  the- 
ory." "  According  to  the  theory  of  Dr.  Tyler, 
God  prefers  sin  to  holiness,  and  decrees  its  exist- 
ence, that  thereby  he  may  show  his  mercy,  in  the 
salvation  of  apart  only  of  the  human  race,  and 
this,  when  he  could  have  secured  the  perfect 
holiness  and  happiness  of  all,  and  of  his  entire 
moral  universe,  throughout  eternity;  The  case 
is  this.  A  father  throws  his  own  children,  or 
permits  them  to  fall  from  a  fearful  precipice,, 
when  he  not  only  could  have  prevented  them, 
hntzvoifld,  had  he  not  determined  sorely  to  wound 
them  all,  and  ultimately  to  destroy  many  of  them, 
that  he  might  show  his  mercy  in  healing  the 
broken  bones  of  others,  in  restoring  them  to 
comfort  and  happiness,  and  in  imparting  to  them 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  59 

the  peculiar  joys  of  so  great  a  deliverance  !  How 
is  it,  according  to  the  same  theory,  that  God  has 
not,  in  the  true  and  fearful  import  of  the  phrase, 
made  a  great  part  of  mankind  on  purpose  to 
damn  them  ?"  "  To  sin  and  be  damned  to  all 
eternity  is  the  result,  and  the  sole  result  in  res- 
pect to  the  greater  part  of  mankind,  designed, 
preferred,  and  purposed  by  their  Maker.  If  this 
is  not  creating  men  on  purpose  to  damn  them, 
let  any  one  tell  what  would  be."  "  This  theory, 
too,  limits  the  goodness  of  God.  God,  according 
to  Dr.  Tyler  could,  if  he  would,  have  secured  the 
perfect  holiness  of  this  universe  of  moral  beings 
forever,  but  the  perfect  holiness  of  all  would 
have  secured  the  perfect  happiness  of  all.  When 
therefore  God  could,  if  he  icoiild,  have  made  a 
universe  of  perfectly  holy  and  happy  beings,  he 
preferred,  decreed,  and  made  one  comprising  sin 
and  its  everlasting  miseries!  We  ask,  is  this 
goodness  ?"  "  Celestial  spirits,  if  they  utter 
truth  in  their  songs,  praise  God,  not  because  he 
vindicates  his  law,  and  sustains  his  throne  by 
the  punishment  of  beings  who  have  violated  any 
will  of  his,  but  for  exactly  fulfilling  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  their  creation  ;  they  praise  God  for  that 
peculiar  delight,  those  higher  and  excjuisite  rap- 
tures, which  they  could  enjoy  only  by  means  of 
the  agonies  of  others  in  everlasting  fire  !  Dr. 
Tyler  will  have  it  that  a  benevolent  God  could 
not  be  satisfied  with  the  perfect  holiness  and  per- 
fect happiness  of  all  his  moral  creatures;  but  to 
raise  to  some  higher,  conceivable  perfection,  the 
happiness  of  those  who  are  saved,  they  must  owe 
it,  in  no  stinted  measure  to  the  eternal  agonies  of 
the  damned!  Such  is  God,  such  is  heaven,  accord- 


bO  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

ing  to  this  theory."  *'  We  go  further,  and  ask, 
in  what  respect  satan  is  more  truly  criminal  as 
a  tempter  than  God  is,  according  to  this  scheme  ? 
If  satan  tempts,  with  the  single  purpose  to  se- 
cure the  perpetration  of  iniquity,  so  does  God, 
according  to  this  scheme.  If  he  purposes 
some  personal  advantage  by  the  sins  of  oth- 
ers, so  does  God,  according  to  this  scheme. 
If  he  does  it  to  secure  the  final  and  end- 
less ruin  of  others,  so,  according  to  this 
scheme,  does  God.  If  Dr.  Tyler  should  say 
that  Satan's  intention  is  evil,  and  that  of  God 
benevolent,  we  answer  first,  by  asking  Dr.  Tyler 
to  prove  this  by  their  doings;  and  secondly,  by 
affirming,  that,  according  to  the  scheme  in  ques- 
tion, the  evil  intention  of  satan  is  the  crowning 
excellence  of  the  act. 

"  This  theory,  if  carried  out  into  its  legitimate 
consequences,  leads  to  universalism,  to  infidelity, 
and  to  atheism.  Dr.  Tyler  maintains  that  God 
can  secure  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  his 
moral  creatures.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  God 
will  secure  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  all  his 
moral  creatures.  Of  course,  all  men  will  be 
saved.  But  this  is  not  all.  According  to  this 
scheme,  the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible  is  sub- 
verted. This  book  confessedly  abounds  in  the 
most  unqualified  declarations  of  the  future  end- 
less misery  of  multitudes  of  the  human  race. 
But  how  can  a  book  which  so  explicitly  and 
abundantly  contradicts  demonstrable,  known 
truth,  be  divine?  Especially,  how  can  a  book 
pretend  to  claim  an  Omnipotent  and  benevolent 
God  for  its  author,  which  exhibits  him  as  creating 
myriads  of  beings,  because  he  prefers    on    the 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    theology.  61 

whole,  their  sin  and  everlasting  misery  to  their 
perfect  holiness  and  happiness  ?  As  a  benevolent 
being,  he  must  be  disposed  to  prevent  it.  But 
according  to  Dr.  Tyler,  the  Scriptures  clearly 
teach  that  God  will  not  secure  the  perfect  holi- 
ness and  happiness  of  his  moral  creation,  when 
he  can  secure  it.  How  then  can  a  book  which 
belies  every  attribute  of  a  perfect  God  pretend  to 
claim  his  authority? 

"Apply  now  the  principles  of  Dr.  Tyler  in 
another  form,  and  atheism  is  the  consequence. 
Dr.  Tyler  will  admit  that  God  is  disposed 
to  prevent  all  evil — in  itself  considered — 
throughout  his  creation.  The  argument  then 
for  atheism  furnished  by  this  theory  may  be 
thus  stated.  If  there  was  a  God,  that  is,  a  being 
of  infinite  power  and  goodness,  he  could  prevent, 
and  would  be  disposed,  and  therefore  would  in 
fact,  prevent  all  evil  throughout  his  creation. 
But  evil  exists.  Therefore,  there  is  not  a  being 
of  infinite  power  and  goodness — there  is  no 
God."  "  We  admit  the  fact,  that  the  foregoing 
reasoning  is  that  of  the  universalist,  the  infidel, 
and  the  atheist.  But  we  ask,  who  furnishes  and 
sustains  its  premises ;  and  what  conclusions, 
when  the  premises  are  admitted,  are  more  unan- 
swerable? We  cannot  but  say,  what  we  believe 
in  the  integrity  of  our  heart,  that  supralapsarian 
Calvinists  furnish  the  grand  principle  on  which 
these  conclusions  rest,  and  combining  their  pow- 
ers of  argument  in  its  defence,  with  all  their 
means  of  influencing  the  faith  of  others,  give  to 
it,  and  to  the  conclusions  founded  on  it,  a  delu- 
sive and  fearful  infallibility  in  the  minds  of 
thousands.  The  principle  is,  an  Oimnipotent 
6 


62  origin  and  progress 

God  by  the  mere  dint  of  power,  can  secure 

THE    universal    HOLINESS    OF    HIS    MORAL    CREA- 
TURES." 

'*  Sure  we  are,  that  a  very  limited  acquain- 
tance with  facts,  would  show  that  the  prin- 
ciple advanced  by  Dr.  Tyler  and  others  is  the 
very  same  which,  in  the  hands  of  Voltaire  and 
other  enemies  of  the  gospel,  has  spread  infidelity 
and  atheism  to  such  a  fearful  extent  throughout 
Europe,  and  is  in  fact  the  basis  of  all  that  lati- 
tudinarianism  which  rejects  Christianity,  and 
calmly  reposes  on  false  and  undefined  notions  of 
the  power  and  goodness  of  God." 

"  Indeed,  we  know  not  a  more  striking  illus- 
tration of  the  appalling  tendency  and  results  of 
adopting  an  unauthorised  elementary  principle  in 
reasoning.  When  men  reason  from  principles 
which  the  friends  of  Christianity  regard  as  false 
or  groundless,  there  is  hope  that  their  errors  will 
be  exposed,  and  that  the  truth  will  be  triumph- 
antly defended.  But  when  the  professed  advo- 
cates of  Christianity  espouse  and  vindicate  the 
very  principles,  which,  in  the  way  of  legitimate 
deduction,  support  the  most  destructive  error, 
what  are  we  to  expect  but  that  light  will  become 
darkness,  and  whole  nations  perish  ?  "  "  The 
theory  in  question  confounds  right  and  wrong, 
and  thus  subverts  all  moral  distinctions.  It  is 
not  the  name  which  constitutes  moral  action 
right  or  wrong.  If  sin,  as  Dr.  Woods  says  of  it, 
'  is  undoubtedly  calculated  for  the  highest  good 
of  the  universe,'  or  as  another  says  of  it, '  is  of  a 
most  glorious  tendency,'  then  it  is  morally  right. 
Sin,  therefore,  in  every  instance  of  its  occur- 
rence, is  proved  by  the  highest  kind  of  evidence, 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  63 

to  be  the  best  kind  of  moral  action.  Thus,  sin 
is  no  longer  sin;  vice  is  no  longer  vice.  Right 
and  wrong,  according  to  this  theory  have  changed 
places  ;  and  what  God  has  pronounced,  and  man 
regarded,  as  wrong  moral  action,  is  right  moral 
action.  If^Dr.  Tyler  should  reply,  as  Dr.  Woods 
does,  by  merely  saying,  that  this  is  a  wounding 
misrepresentation  ;  we  answer,  first,  that  it  is 
not  a  misrepresentation,  and  that  no  unpreju- 
diced mind  can  be  stultified  into  the  belief  that 
the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good  is  not 
an  excellent  thing — even  the  best  thing  in  its 
place.  We  answer,  secondly,  if  this  representa- 
tion is  icounding,  let  the  theory  that  justifies  it 
be  abandoned,  and  the  wound  will  be  healed." 

'*  If  Dr.  Tyler  should  say,  that  he  utterly  de- 
nies that  sin  is  a  good  thing  ; — we  answer  we  are 
fully  aware  of  this,  and  regard  it  as  a  peculiarly 
grateful  fact.  But  then  Dr.  Tyler  also  asserts 
that  sin  is  a  good  thing.  And  is  a  man  to  be  al- 
lowed, without  correction,  to  say  that  which  is 
not  true  half  the  time,  because  he  says  that  which 
is  true  the  other  half?  Now  it  is  this  happy  in- 
consistency which  saves  those  who  maintain  this 
theory,  from  being  the  very  worst  of  here- 
tics." "Nothing  worse  can  be  imputed  to  the 
worst  of  men  than  the  theory  under  considera- 
tion, imputes  to  God.  According  to  this  theory, 
God  purposes  sin,  not  for  its  own  sake,  or  in  it- 
self considered,  but  as  the  means  of  good,  i.  e.  on 
account  of  certain  advantages  resulting  from  it. 
Now  the  same  things  are  true  in  every  substan- 
tial respect  of  the  assassin." 

"  Dr.  Tyler,  according  to  his  principles,  can 
not  show  that  acts  of  assassination  have  not  been, 


64  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

and  may  not  be,  perpetrated  from  the  same  mo- 
tives as  those  with  which  he  represents  God  as,  on 
the  whole,  preferring  sin  to  holiness,  viz.  a  de- 
sire to  promote  the  general  good." 

"  If  Dr.  Tyler  should  say,  that  the  objections 
which  we  have  brought  against  this  theory,  are 
the  same  as  those  which  the  enemies  of  sound 
doctrine  commonly  charge  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  purpose  respecting  sin,  we  answer,  that 
this  is  more  easily  said  than  proved.  It  is  in- 
deed readily  confessed,  that  these  objections  have 
been  often  charged  on  that  form  of  the  doctrine 
which  is  taught  by  supralapsarian  Calvinists,  viz. 
the  theory  that  God  prefers  the  existence  of  sin 
rather  than  holiness  in  its  stead.  But  it  admits 
of  a  question,  whether  these  objections  were  ever 
alleged  against  the  true  doctrine,  respecting  the 
existence  of  sin.  Who  among  Arminians,  or 
even  Unitarians,  at  least  in  this  age,  would  deny 
the  universality  of  God's  providential  government 
and  purposes,  as  the  basis  of  contidence  and  sub- 
mission under  all  evil." 

These  extracts  are  a  specimen  of  the  senti- 
ment, style,  and  spirit  of  this  Review.  You  can 
now  judge  whether  the  language  of  Dr.  Porter  in 
reference  to  it  is  too  severe. 

That  the  Arminians  and  Unitarians  do  not  ob- 
ject to  Dr.  Taylor's  views  of  this  subject,  is  very 
true.  But  whether  this  is  a  recommendation  of 
his  views,  is  a  point  about  which  different  opin- 
ions will  be  entertained. 

Immediately  after  the  publication  of  this  Re- 
view, Dr.  Tyler  wrote  to  the  editor  inquiring 
whether  he  might  be  permitted  to  reply  to  it  in 
the  Christian  Spectator,   and  was  informed  that 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  65 

no  reply  could  be  admitted,  unless  it  was  a  short 
letter  of  a  page  or  two,  accompanied  by  such 
remarks  as  the  editor  might  see  fit  to  append  to 
it.  Of  this  fact,  Dr.  Porter  speaks  in  severe 
terms.  In  one  of  his  letters,  he  says,  "  within  a 
day  or  two,  the  Mirror  came  to  hand,  in  which 
the  unworthy  subterfuge  of  the  editor  in  refusing 
any  reply,  at  least  any  adequate  one  is  repre- 
hended. This  fact  ought  to  be  generally  known. 
It  shows  a  systematic  party  disingenuousness, 
that  cannot  commend  itself  to  the  Christian  pub- 
lic, and  that  could  hardly  have  been  tolerated 
until  this  time  if  it  had  been  understood."  In 
another  letter  he  says,  "  Dr.  Taylor  should  have 
a  jog  as  to  occupying  the  Spirit  of  the'Pilgrims, 
while  the  Spectator  has  been  so  closely  shut  up 
against  one  sentence  in  opposition  to  his  views, 
except  as  quoted  by  its  own  writers  for  comment. 
No  work  in  our  country  has  been  so  narrowly 
conducted." 

Yours,  very  affectionately. 


LETTER   VIII. 


March  7,  1837, 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

In  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims  for  May,  1833, 
Dr.  Tyler  published  an  article  in  which  he  ex- 
posed the  misrepresentations  which  Dr.  Taylor 
had  made  of  his  sentiments,  particularly  in  the 
Review  of  which  I  gave  you  some  account  in  my 
last  letter.  Soon  after  this.  Dr.  Taylor  publish- 
ed a  letter  addressed  to  the  Editor  of  the  Chris- 
tian Spectator,  the  object  of  which  was  to  show 
that  he  and  Dr.  Tyler  were,  after  all,  perfectly 
agreed.  This  was  a  very  extraordinary  produc- 
tion, and  was,  I  believe,  so  regarded  by  not  a 
few  of  Dr.  Taylor's  particular  friends,  as  well  as 
by  other  portions  of  the  community.  That  after 
having  charged  Dr.  Tyler  with  adopting  theories 
which  involve  the  positions  that  "  sin  is  a  good 
thing;"  that  "God  is  the  responsible  author  of 
sin;"  that  "the  divine  lawgiver  is  a  deceiver;" 
that  ''God  is  a  criminal  tempter;"  that  "  in  no 
sense  is  satan  more  truly  criminal  as  a  tempter 
than  God  is  ;"  that  "  we  ought  to  praise  God  for 
all  the  sin  which  we  and  others  have  ever  com- 


NEW     HAVEN    THEOLOGY 


67 


mitted  ;"  and  after  having  affirmed,  that  nothing 
but  the  inconsistency  of  Dr.  Tyler  saves  him 
from  being  "the  very  worst  of  heretics," 
and  that  his  theories,  "  if  carried  out  into  their 
legitimate  consequences,  lead  to  universalism, 
TO  infidelity,  and  to  atheism  ;"  that  Dr. 
Taylor,  after  having  said  all  this,  and  much  more 
to  the  same  effect,  should  come  forward  and  af- 
firm, that  "  we  perfectly  agree  in  every  partic- 
ular respecting  these  important  points,"  was  not 
a  little  surprising.  Yet  this  he  did,  and  that  too 
without  retracting  a  single  position  which  he  had 
taken,  and  without  showing,  or  attempting  to 
show,  that  Dr.  Tyler  had  retracted  anything. 

Dr.  Tyler  published  in  a  pamphlet  some  re- 
marks on  this  letter,  which  closed  the  contro- 
versy between  him  and  Dr.  Taylor.  In  these  re- 
marks, after  bringing  into  view  a  number  of 
points  which  he  had  explicitly  maintained,  and 
comparing  them  with  the  statements  of  Dr.  Tay- 
lor, he  proceeds  to  examine  Dr.  Taylor's  mode 
of  reasoning,  by  which  he  attempts  to  show  that 
there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  between  them. 
He  says : 

"  He  (Dr.  Taylor)  does  not  pretend  that  I 
have  formally  retracted  any  of  the  positions 
which  he  has  controverted.  But  because  we  are 
agreed  on  certain  points  which  have  never  been 
a  matter  of  dispute  between  us,  he  infers  that  we 
must  be  agreed  on  all  the  points  in  debate.  As 
if  he  should  say.  Dr.  Taylor  and  I  are  agreed  that 
there  is  a  God,  and  that  the  Bible  is  his  word, 
therefore  our  views  harmonize  on  every  point  of 
Christian  doctrine.  Now  any  one  can  see,  that 
in  this  reasoning,  the  conclusion  is  broader  than 


C8 


ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 


the  premises.  Dr.  Taylor  has  said,  'It  is  con- 
fessedly unauthorized  to  charge  opinions  upon 
any  man  on  the  ground  of  mere  inference.'  Yet 
this  is  the  very  thing  which  he  has  done  through- 
out the  whole  of  his  last  letter.  He  infers  that 
I  admit  certain  positions  (in  the  face  of  my  most 
explicit  declarations  to  the  contrary,)  because  I 
admit  certain  other  positions. 

"  I  will  endeavor  to  illustrate  Dr.  Taylor's 
mode  of  reasoning  by  one  or  two  examples. 
Suppose  that  a  Unitarian  and  a  Calvinist  are  dis- 
puting in  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity. 
The  Unitarian  charges  the  Calvinist  with  main- 
taining that  there  are  three  Gods,  and  goes  on  to 
show  that  there  is  but  one  God.  The  Calvinist 
replies,  you  misrepresent  me,  1  have  never  main- 
tained that  there  are  three  Gods — I  have  shown 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  does  not  involve 
any  such  sentiment.  I  believe  as  firmly  as  you 
do,  that  there  is  but  one  God.  I  perceive,  then, 
rejoins  the  Unitarian,  that  we  are  perfectly  agreed. 
I  now  understand  you  to  deny  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity.  Again  :  Suppose  A.  and  B.  are  discuss- 
ing the  question  whether  all  men  will  be  saved. 
Says  A.  to  B.  you  maintain  that  Christ  died  for 
only  a  part  of  the  human  race,  whereas  the  scrip- 
tures say  that  he  tasted  death  for  every  man.  B. 
replies,  I  do  not  believe  as  you  represent  me.  I 
admit  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  sufficient 
for  all  men,  and  that  salvation  is  freely  offered  to 
all.  There  is,  then,  replies  A.  no  difference  be- 
tween us,  I  understand  you  to  admit  that  all 
men  will  be  saved.  These  are  exact  specimens 
of  Dr.  Taylor's  mode  of  reasoning.  He  says, 
'  Dr.  Tyler  does  not  believe,  but  denies  that  sin 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  69 

is  the  best  thing,  or  a  good  thing  in  any  sense.' 
From  this  he  infers  that  I  agree  with  him  in  re- 
jecting the  positions,  that  '  the  existence  of  sin 
is,  on  the  whole,  for  the  best,'  and  that  'God,  all 
things  considered,  prefers  sin  to  holiness  in  all 
instances  in  which  the  former  takes  place' — posi- 
tions which  he  knows  I  have  most  explicitly  and 
uniformly  maintained." 

Dr.  Tyler  closes  his  remarks  with  a  summary 
view  of  the  main  points  of  difference  between 
him  and  Dr.  Taylor,  and  of  their  practical  im- 
portance.    He  says : 

1.  "  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  be- 
lief, that  God  could  not  have  prevented  all  sin  in 
a  moral  system." 

We  have  seen  the  importance  which  Dr.  Tay- 
lor attaches  to  this  point  of  difference.  In  the 
Review  mentioned  in  my  last  letter,  he  repre- 
sents the  denial  of  this  position,  as  leading  to 
Universalism,  to  Infidelity,  and  to  Atheism.  "  I 
also  regard  it  as  important;  for  it  must,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  very  materially  affect  our  views  of 
the  character  and  government  of  God.  Accord- 
ing to  this  statement,  God  has  created  a  universe 
of  moral  beings  which  he  cannot  govern.  -Were 
I  to  adopt  this  position,  I  could  not  regard  Je- 
hovah as  an  Almighty  being ;  nor  could  I  feel 
the  least  assurance  that  he  will  be  able  to  accorft- 
plish  his  purposes  or  fulfil  his  promises.  If  his 
creatures  are  so  independent  of  him,  that  he  can- 
not control  their  moral  actions  at  pleasure,  what 
assurance  can  he  give  us,  that  every  Saint  and 
every  Angel  will  not  yet  apostatize,  and  spread 
desolation  through  the  moral  universe.  Besides, 
if  God  has  not  a  perfect  dominion  over  the  hearts 


70  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

and  moral  conduct  of  his  creatures,  how  can  we 
consistently  pray  that  God  would  incline  our 
hearts,  or  the  hearts  of  others?  And  how  can 
we  regard  the  afflictions,  brought  upon  us  by  the 
agency  of  men,  as  divine  judgments;  or  the 
blessings  we  receive,  through  their  instrumental- 
ity, as  divine  mercies?  This  view  of  the  subject, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  tends  directly  to  discourage 
prayer,  and  takes  away  the  principal  motives  to 
submission  and  gratitude. 

2.  "  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  be- 
lief, that  the  existence  of  sin  is  not,  on  the  whole, 
for  the  best,  and  that  a  greater  amount  of  good 
would  have  been  secured  had  all  God's  creatures 
remained  holy,  than  will  result  from  the  present 
system. 

"  According  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  God  must  look  with  everlasting 
regret  upon  the  moral  universe.  While  he  pre- 
fers, all  things  considered,  that  all  his  creatures 
should  be  holy  and  happy,  and  while  he  is  doing 
all  in  his  power  to  make  them  so,  he  must  be  lit- 
erally grieved  and  unhappy  to  find  his  efforts  con- 
stantly defeated.  And  is  this  the  view  which  the 
scriptures  give  us  of  the  ever  blessed  God — 
that  God  who  has  said,  my  council  shall  standi 
and  I  will  r/o  all  my  pleasure.  Besides — the 
above  position  subverts  the  doctrine  of  special 
grace.  If  God  regards  universal  holiness,  as,  on 
the  whole,  desirable,  it  nmst  be  his  desire,  all 
things  considered,  that  every  individual  should 
be  holy ;  and  he  must  of  course  do  all  in  his 
power  to  make  every  individual  holy.  What, 
then,  becomes  of  the  doctrine  of  special,  distin- 
guishing, sovereign,  and  electing  grace? 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  71 

3.  "  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  be- 
lief, that  God,  all  things  considered,  prefers  holi- 
ness to  sin,  in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter 
takes  place. 

"  This  position,  as  I  have  shown,  utterly  subverts 
the  doctrine  of  decrees.  It  amounts,  in  my  view, 
to  a  declaration  that  God  does  not  in  any  sense 
prefer,  and  of  course,  has  not  decreed  the  exis- 
tence of  sin  ;  for  sin  certainly  would  not  exist, 
if  in  all  instances,  holiness  should  exist  in  its 
stead.  How  is  it  possible  for  God  to  prefer,  on 
any  account,  the  existence  of  sin,  in  any  instance, 
if,  all  things  considered,  that  is,  on  all  accounts, 
he  prefers  something  else  in  its  stead,  in  all  in- 
stances ?  I  have  also  shown  that  this  position 
subverts  the  doctrine  of  election. 

4.  "  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  belief, 
that  mankind  come  into  the  world  with  the  same 
nature,  in  kind,  as  that  with  w^hich  Adam  was 
created. 

*'  According  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  Adam 
was  not  created  holy,  nor  is  there,  as  I  can  see, 
any  real  connexion  between  the  sin  of  Adam 
and  that  of  his  posterity.  This  position,  there- 
fore, entirely  subverts  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  as  generally  maintained  by  Calvinists.  Be- 
sides; if  this  position  be  true,  infants  are  in  no 
sense  sinners,  and  do  not  need  to  be  born  again, 
nor  to  be  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  If 
admitted  to  heaven,  they  will  be  accepted  on  the 
ground  of  their  own  righteousness,  and  without 
regeneration,  contrary  to  the  express  declarations 
of  Christ  and  the  apostle.  '  Except  a  man  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  heav- 


72  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

en.     By  the  deeds  of  the  law  no  flesh   shall  be 
justified.' 

5.  "  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  be- 
lief, that  the  only  reason  that  the  posterity  of 
Adam  do  not  exhibit  the  same  moral  character 
which  Adam  exhibited,  is  not  that  they  have  a 
diSerent  nature,  but  that  they  are  placed  in  dif- 
ferent circumstances. 

"  This,  if  I  mistake  not,  is  the  precise  ground 
which  the  oppo^rs  of  Calvinism  have  uniformly 
taken,  when  controverting  the  doctrine  of  origin- 
al sin  ;  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be  intimately  con- 
nected with  those  systems  of  belief  which  en- 
tirely discard  the  doctrines  of  grace.  Indeed, 
if  the  depravity  of  man  is  owing  solely  to  the 
circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed,  it  would 
seem  that  no  other  remedy  would  be  needed  for 
it  but  a  change  of  circumstances.  Consequent- 
ly, a  man  does  not  need  a  radical  change  of  heart 
by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

6.  "  Dr.  Taylor  and  I  differ  in  regard  to  the  na- 
ture of  selfishness.  According  to  him,  selfish- 
ness does  not  consist  in  making  our  own  happi- 
ness our  ultimate  end,  but  in  love  of  the  world, 
or  in  preferring  the  world  to  God,  as  our  portion 
or  chief  good. 

7.  "  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  belief, 
that  '  self-love  is  the  primary  cause  of  all  moral 
action.'  He  says,  "  The  being  constituted  with 
a  capacity  for  happiness,  desires  to  be  happy,  and 
knowing  that  he  is  capable  of  deriving  happiness 
from  different  objects,  considers  from  which  the 
greatest  happiness  may  be  derived  ;  and  as  in  this 
respect  he  judges,  or  estimates  their  relative  value, 
so  he  chooses  one  or  the  other  as  his  chief  good.' 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  73 

"  This  I  regard  as  one  of  the  most  dangerous 
parts  of  Dr.  Taylor's  system ;  for  it  affects  the 
very  essence  of  religion — the  very  nature  of  ho- 
liness. According  to  him,  self-love,  or  the  de- 
sire of  happiness,  is  the  grand  principle  by  which 
every  being,  whether  sinful  or  holy,  is  actuated. 
All  have  the  same  ultimate  end.  '  Of  all  specific 
voluntary  action,  the  happiness  of  the  agent,  in 
some  form,  is  the  ultimate  end.'  According  to 
this  statement,  the  distinction  of  moral  character 
which  exists  among  men,  does  not  arise  from  the 
fact  that  they  have  different  ultimate  ends,  but 
from  the  fact,  that  they  adopt  different  means  to 
obtain  the  same  ultimate  end.  The  reason  that 
one  is  holy,  and  another  sinful,  is,  the  one  seeks 
his  own  happiness  by  choosing  God  as  his  por- 
tion and  chief  good  ;  the  other  seeks  his  own 
happiness,  by  choosing  the  world  as  his  portion  or 
chief  good.  Both  have  a  supreme  regard  to 
their  own  happiness.  Consequently  there  is  no 
radical  distinction  between  holiness  and  sin. 
Both  may  be  traced  to  the  same  principle  of  ac- 
tion. I  cannot  but  say,  what  I  honestly  believe, 
that  the  religion  which  is  in  accordance  with  this 
theory,  is  a  selfish,  and  of  course,  a  spurious]  re- 
ligion." 

"  Besides — according  to  this  theory,  depravity 
consists  in  ignorance;  and  all  that  is  necessary 
to  effect  the  conversion  of  sinners;  is,  to  enlighten 
them  as  to  the  best  means  of  securing  their  high- 
est happiness.  Regeneration,  therefore,  by  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  be  necessary. 
8.  "  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  belief, 
that  sinners  may  so  resist  the  grace  of  God  as  to 
render  it  impossible  for  God  to  convert  them. 
7 


74  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

He  says,  '  I  do  not  believe  that  the  grace  of 
God,  can  be  truly  said  to  be  irresistible,  in  the 
primary  and  proper  import  of  the  term.  But  I 
do  believe  that  in  all  cases,  it  may  be  resisted  by 
man  as  a  free  moral  agent ;  and  that  when  it  is 
effectual  to  conversion,  it  is  unresisted.'  He 
also  says,  '  Free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  un- 
der all  possible  preventing  influence.  Using  their 
powers  as  they  may  use  them,  they  will  sin  ;  and 
no  one  can  show  that  some  such  agents  will  not 
use  their  powers  as  they  may  use  them.  This 
possibility  that  free  agents  will  sin,  remains,  (sup- 
pose what  else  you  will,)  so  long  as  moral  agency 
remains;  and  how  can  it  be  proved  that  a  thing 
will  not  he,  when  for  aught  that  appears  it  may 
he  1  When,  in  view  of  all  the  facts  and  evidence 
in  the  case,  it  remains  true  that  it  may  he,  what 
evidence  or  proof  can  exist  that  it  will  not  he?' 

9.  "Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  be- 
lief, that  antecedent  to  regeneration,  the  selfish 
principle  is  suspended  in  the  sinner's  heart,  that 
he  ceases  to  sin,  and  uses  the  means  of  regene- 
ration, with  motives  which  are  neither  right  nor 
wrong. 

"  The  tendency  of  these  views,  I  have  pointed 
out  at  length  in  my  Strictures  and  Vindication^ 
to  which  I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader.  If  I 
mistake  not,  I  have  shown  that  they  lead  to  the 
subversion  of  important  doctrines,  and  deeply 
affect  the  interests  of  evangelical  religion." 

"  It  has  sometimes  been  said,  that  the  differences 
between  Dr.  Taylor  and  his  brethren,  relate  sole- 
ly to  theories,  and  that  they  are  agreed  as  to  all 
the  important  facts  taught  in  the  Bible.  This, 
however,  in  my  view,  is  entirely  a  mistake.     The 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  /5 

question  whether  God  was  able  to  prevent  sin  in 
a  moral  system  is  a  question  of  fact.  So  the 
questions  whether  sin  is,  on  the  whole,  for  the 
best, — whether  God,  all  things  considered,  pre- 
fers holiness  to  sin  in  all  instances  in  which  the 
latter  takes  place — whether  mankind  come  into 
the  world  with  the  same  nature,  in  kind,  as  that 
with  which  Adam  was  created — whether  self-love 
is  the  primary  cause  of  moral  action — and  wheth- 
er the  selfish  principle  is  suspended  in  the  sin- 
ner's heart  antecedent  to  regeneration,  are  ques- 
tions relating  to  matters  of  fact ;  and  questions 
too,  which  have  an  important  bearing  upon  the 
system  of  divine  truth.  Our  views  of  christian 
doctrine,  and  of  experimental  religion,  must  be 
materially  modified  by  the  manner  in  which  these 
questions  are  decided." 

I  have  made  the  foregoing  extracts  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enabling  you  to  see  at  a  single  glance 
the  prominent  points  on  which  the  New  Haven 
divines  differ  from  their  brethren.  That  after  all 
which  they  have  said,  they  should  now  claim  that 
there  is  no  difference,  or  at  least  no  important 
difference  between  them  and  their  brethren,  is 
truly  surprising.  Dr.  Tyler  closes  his  remarks 
with  the  following  observations  on  this  point. 

He  says  :  "  What  I  have  maintained  is,  that 
he  (Dr.  Taylor)  has  adopted  principles  which, 
when  carried  out  in  their  legitimate  consequen- 
ces, lead  to  the  subversion  of  fundamental  doc- 
trines. It  is  on  this  account  that  I  regard  his 
errors  as  dangerous,  and  the  difference  between 
us  as  important.  Still  I  have  not  attached  to 
them  the  importance  given  to  them  by  Dr.  Tay- 
lor.    I  have  never  said,  that  nothinfr  but  his  in- 


/b  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRES?! 

consistency  saves  him  from  being  *  the  very 
worst  of  heretics' — that  his  theories  '  lead  to 
Universalism,  to  Infidelity,  and  to  Atheism' — 
and  that  they  involve  such  horrid  blasphemy  as 
he  has  charged  upon  my  theories.  Surely,  Dr. 
Taylor  and  his  associates  are  the  last  men  in  the 
world,  who  ought  to  say  that  the  differences  be- 
tween them  and  their  brethren  are  of  little  im- 
portance. If  they  really  believe  that  their  breth- 
ren do  maintain  such  shocking  and  blasphemous 
errors  as  they  have  imputed  to  them  in  the  Chris- 
tian Spectator,  they  ought,  in  order  to  be  consist- 
ent, to  renounce  all  fellowship  with  them  at  once. 
How  can  they  hold  fellowship  with  men  who 
maintain  that  '  sin  is  a  good  thing,  even  the  best 
thing  V 

"Yet  they  have  imputed  this  sentiment  not  only 
to  me,  but  to  Dr.  Bellamy,  to  Dr.  Hopkins,  to 
Dr.  Strong,  to  Dr.  Woods,  and  to  all  who  adopt 
their  views  in  relation  to  the  divine  permission 
of  sin.  They  have  charged  them  with  holding 
sentiments  which  involve  the  positions  '  that  the 
Divine  Lawgiver  is  a  deceiver' — that  '  God  is  a 
criminal  tempter,'  and  many  other  consequences 
which  no  sober  man  can  contemplate  without 
horror.  And  do  they  wonder  that  their  brethren 
are  dissatisfied  ?  Can  they  suppose  that  the  min- 
isters and  churches  of  New  England,  will  look 
with  indifference  upon  such  representations  of 
doctrines  which  they  have  ever  regarded  as  the 
truth  of  God,  and  which  were  taught  by  those 
eminent  divines  whose  praise  is  in  all  the  church- 
es? It  is  truly  with  an  ill  grace  that  they  should 
now  pretend,  that  there  is  no  difference  between 
them  and  their  brethren.     They  are  the  men  who 


OF   NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  77 

have  magnified  this  difference,  and  attached  to 
it  momentous  consequences.  If  they  are  con- 
vinced of  their  error,  let  them  frankly  and  hon- 
orably retract.  But  let  them  not,  in  one  breath, 
charge  their  brethren  with  maintaining  senti- 
ments which  lead  to  the  very  worst  of  here- 
sies, and  involve  the  most  horrid  blasphemies; 
and  in  the  next,  say,  we  are  perfectly  agreed. 
This,  surely,  is  not  the  way  to  heal  the  bleeding 
wounds  of  Zion,  and  to  restore  peace  to  the 
heritage  of  the  Lord." 

This  pamphlet,  as  I  observed,  closed  the  con- 
troversy between  Dr.  Tyler  and  Dr.  Taylor. 
Although  Dr.  Taylor  had  given  to  the  controver- 
sy so  serious  an  aspect  by  charging  upon  his  op- 
ponent the  most  blasphemous  errors ;  and  al- 
though Dr.  Tyler  called  upon  him  in  this  pamph- 
let to  retract  his  charges  or  substantiate  them — 
yet  he  has  not  deigned  to  do  either.  Meanwhile, 
the  watchword  of  the  party  for  the  last  three  or 
four  years  has  been,"  No  difference." 

Yours  very  affectionately. 


7* 


LETTER  IX. 


March  13,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

In  1833,  Dr.  Griffin  published  his  treatise  on 
"  The  Doctrine  of  Divine  Efficiency,"  in  which 
he  examines  the  theories  of  the  New  Haven  Di- 
vines so  far  as  they  have  a  bearing  on  this  sub- 
ject ;  and  shows  most  conclusively,  that  many  of 
their  positions  are  essentially  Arminian,  This 
is  a  valuable  work,  and  ought  to  be  extensively 
circulated  and  read.  No  answer  to  it  has  as  yet 
been  published. 

On  the  10th  of  September,  1833,  a  conven- 
tion of  ministers  was  held  in  East  Windsor,  to 
take  into  consideration  the  expediency  of  estab- 
lishing a  new  Theological  Seminary  in  Connec- 
ticut. This  was  a  very  interesting  meeting.  Twa 
days  were  spent  in  prayerful  deliberation,  during 
which  time,  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  seem- 
ed to  grant  them  special  tokens  of  his  presence. 
There  appeared  to  be  an  unusual  spirit  of  prayer. 
Nothing  like  a  spirit  of  party  was  apparent  in 
their  deliberations;  but  great  spirituality  and 
harmony  of  feeling  pervaded  the  meeting.     Sen- 


NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  79 

sible  of  the  responsibility  resting  upon  them, 
they  acted  in  the  fear  of  God.  "  The  great  and 
aJl-absorbing  inquiry  was,  what  do  the  honor 
of  God,  and  the  interest  of  his  kingdom  demand  ? 
They  were  unanimous  in  their  result.  Fully 
satisfied  that  they  had  discovered  the  path  of  duty, 
they  resolved  to  go  forward  in  the  strength  of  the 
Lord."  Accordingly,  they  organized  themselves 
into  a  Pastoral  Union,  formed  a  constitution,  and 
appointed  a  Board  of  Trustees.  Shortly  after, 
the  Trustees  proceeded  to  locate  the  Institution, 
to  elect  a  Faculty,  and  to  provide  the  necessary 
buildings,  library,  &c.  On  the  13th  of  May, 
1834,  the  corner  stone  of  the  Seminary  edifice 
was  laid  with  appropriate  services;  and  on  the 
same  day,  the  President  and  Professor  of  Eccle- 
siastical History  were  inducted  into  office.  In 
October,  of  the  same  year,  the  Professor  of  Bib- 
lical Literature  was  inaugurated,  and  the  Semi- 
nary went  into  full  operation  with  a  respectable 
number  of  students.  Hitherto  the  Lord  has 
seemed  to  prosper  the  infant  Seminary  far  be- 
yond the  expectations  of  its  founders.  May  it 
continue  to  enjoy  his  smiles,  and  be  made  instru- 
mental of  incalculable  good.  The  reasons  which 
led  to  the  establishment  of  this  Seminary,  are 
fully  set  forth  in  the  "  Appeal  to  the  Public," 
published  by  the  Trustees,  in  October,  1834 — 
a  copy  of  which  I  take  the  liberty  to  send  you. 
This  appeal  was  occasioned  by  an  attack  made 
upon  the  Seminary  in  a  Manifesto  from  the  The- 
ological Professors  in  Yale  College.  I  must  give 
you  some  account  of  this  Manifesto. 

The  Rev.  Daniel  Dow,  a  member  of  the  Cor- 


80  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

'^ration  of  Yale  College,  having  been  appointed 
on  a  committee  to  attend  the  examination  of  the 
Theological  School,  and  being  called  upon  to 
make  a  report  to  the  Corporation,  at  their  annual 
meeting  in  September,  1834,  took  occasion  to 
object  to  some  of  the  doctrines  taught  in  the 
School,  and  to  suggest  that  the  Professor  of 
Didactic  Theology  had  taught  and  published 
sentiments  inconsistent  with  the  creed  on  which 
this  Professorship  was  founded.  This  led  to 
some  discussion  in  the  Corporation,  to  a  confer- 
ence with  the  Professors,  and  to  the  Manifesto 
of  which  I  have  just  spoken. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  state,  that  since  1722 
until  recently,  all  the  officers  of  Yale  College 
have  been  required  to  declare  their  assent  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith  contained  in  the  Saybrook 
Platform,  which  is  almost  entirely  the  same  as 
that  of  the  Westminster  divines.  But  within  a 
few  years  past,  the  test-law  of  the  College  has 
been  repealed ;  so  that  now,  neither  the  Presi- 
dent nor  Professors  are  obliged  to  give  their  as- 
sent to  any  Confession  of  Faith;  nor  are  the  cor- 
poration authorized  to  dismiss  them  from  office 
on  account  of  any  religious  opinions  whatever. 
This  applies  to  the  theological  no  less  than  to  the 
academical  Professors,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Professor  of  Didactic  Theology. 

But  the  repeal  of  the  law  could  not  affect  this 
Professorship,  because  there  were  certain  stipu- 
lations with  the  founders,  which  it  was  beyond 
the  power  of  the  corporation  to  repeal.  The 
principal  subscribers  to  the  fund,  made  the  fol- 
lowing requisition :  "  Every  Professor,  who  shall 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  81 

receive  the  income  or  revenue  of  this  fund,  shall 
be  examined  as  to  his  fiiith,  and  be  required  to 
make  a  written  declaration  thereof  agreeable  to 
the  following:  'I  hereby  declare  my  free  assent 
to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Ecclesiastical 
Discipline,  agreed  upon  by  the  Churches  of  the 
State  in  1708 — (i.  e.  the  Say  brook  Platform.) 
If  at  any  future  period,  any  person  who  fills  the 
chair  of  this  Professorship,  holds  or  teaches  doc- 
trines contrary  to  those  referred  to,  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  Corporation  of  the  College  to 
dismiss  him  from  office  forthwith ;  and  if  they 
do  not  dismiss  him,  then  we  reserve  to  our  heirs 
the  right  to  demand  the  several  sums  which  we 
have  paid,  or  may  hereafter  pay  respectively.'" 

The  Corporation,  after  reciting  the  foregoing 
in  a  preamble,  passed  the  following  vote  :  "  This 
Board  doth  accordingly  found  and  establish  in 
this  College,  on  said  fund,  a  Professorship  of 
Didactic  Theology,  on  the  terms,  conditions, 
and  limitations  expressed  in  said  instrument 
signed  by  Timothy  D wight  and  others." 

It  would  seem,  from  the  foregoing  statement, 
that  the  Professor  of  Didactic  Theology  is  re- 
quired to  give  his  unqualified  assent  to  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  contained  in  the  Saybrook  Plat- 
form. It  was  so  understood  by  Mr.  Dow  when 
he  made  his  report  to  the  Corporotion.  But  the 
Professors  in  their  Manifesto,  defend  the  princi- 
ple that  a  subscription  to  articles  of  Faith,  is 
made  only  for  "  substance  of  doctrine."  They 
admit  that  Dr.  Taylor  does  hold  and  teach  doc- 
trines contrary  to  those  contained  in  the  Say- 
brook  Platform.  They  say,  moreover,  that  while 
Professor    elect,  he    "  had    certain    knowledge, 


82  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

from  personal  intercourse  with  the  founders,  that 
had  he  embraced  every  minute  doctrine  of  the 
Confession,  it  would  have  been  considered  a  de- 
cisive disqualification  for  the  office."  This  is 
certainly  a  very  extraordinary  declaration;  and 
it  naturally  suggests  several  inquiries. 

What  could  be  the  object  of  the  founders,  to 
require  their  Professor  to  give  his  unqualified 
assent  to  a  creed,  and  then  inform  him  that  if  he 
did  comply  with  their  requisition  fully  and  sin- 
cerely, they  should  consider  him  disqualified  for 
the  office?  Was  such  a  thing  ever  heard  of  be- 
fore on  the  face  of  the  globe  1  Why  did  they 
not  prescribe  such  a  creed  as  they  should  be  will- 
ing to  have  their  Professor  subscribe,  ex  animo, 
and  without  reservation  ?  Or  if  it  was  their  in- 
tention that  assent  should  be  given  to  the  creed 
"  for  substance  of  doctrine,"  why  did  they  not  say 
so  1  And  if  Dr.  Taylor  intended  to  give  his  as- 
sent only  "  for  substance  of  doctrine,"  why  did 
he  not  say  so  ?  If  he  had  informed  the  Corpo- 
ration, that  he  could  not  give  an  unqualified  as- 
sent to  the  creed,  and  if  the  Corporation  had 
been  authorized  by  the  founders  to  accept,  and 
had  actually  accepted  of  a  qualified  assent,  the 
case  would  be  different. 

But  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Corporation 
are  authorized  to  accept  of  any  but  an  unqualifi- 
ed assent ;  and  so  far  as  appears,  the  assent  given 
by  Dr.  Taylor  was  unqualified.  And  is  the  doc- 
trine to  be  maintained  and  defended,  that  when 
persons  give  their  assent  to  Confessions  of  Faith 
in  the  most  solemn  manner,  and  in  the  most  un- 
qualified language,  they  are  not  to  be  understood 
as  meaning  what  they  affirm  ? 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  83 

Besides — on  what  is  this  Professorship  found- 
ed, and  for  what  cause  are  the  Corporation  re- 
quired to  dismiss  the  Professor  from  office  ?  The 
founders,  so  far  as  appears  from  their  statutes, 
make  it  the  duty  of  the  Corporation  to  dismiss 
the  Professor  from  office,  if  he  holds  or  teaches 
doctrines  contrary  to  those  contained  in  the 
Platform.  Yet  it  is  admitted  that  the  present 
Professor  does  hold  and  teach  doctrines  contrary 
to  those  above  referred  to.  But  it  is  contended, 
that  he  is  not  liable,  on  this  account,  to  impeach- 
ment, because  he  had  '*  certain  knowledge  from 
personal  intercourse  with  the  founders,"  that  it 
is  their  will  that  he  should  hold  and  teach  doc- 
trines contrary  to  the  Confession  to  which  they 
have  required  his  free  assent  in  the  most  unqual- 
ified terms.  What  then  is  the  creed  by  which 
this  Professor  is  bound  ?  Is  it  the  Saybrook 
Platform  "  for  substance  of  doctrine?"  But  this 
is  not  mentioned  by  the  founders.  And  if  we 
may  suppose  it  to  have  been  so  understood,  how  is 
it  to  be  ascertained  what  is  implied  in  subscrip- 
tion to  a  creed  "for  substance  of  doctrine?" 
How  much  may  be  rejected,  and  still  the  sub- 
stance be  retained  ?  Who  shall  draw  the  line, 
and  where  shall  the  line  be  drawn? 

But  I  have  still  another  question  in  relation  to 
this  subject.  Can  a  person  be  truly  said  to  re- 
ceive a  confession  of  Faith  '*  for  substance  of 
doctrine,"  when  in  his  view  that  confession  con- 
tains the  most  destructive  errors  ?  According 
to  Dr.  Taylor,  the  Saybrook  Platform  contains 
principles  which  lead  by  legitimate  consequence 
to  "  the  very  worst  of  heresies" — "  to  Universal- 
ism,  to  Infidelity,  and  to  Atheism," — principles 


84  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

which  involve  the  positions,  that  "  sin  is  a  good 
thing" — "  good  in  itself — "  the  only  real  good  to 
man" — that  "  when  men  sin,  they  do  the  very 
best  thing  they  can  do" — that  "  God  is  the  re- 
sponsible author  of  sin" — that  "  the  terms  of 
salvation,  and  the  exhibition  of  motives  to  com- 
ply with  them,  are  a  delusive  mockery" — that 
**God  is  a  criminal  tempter" — that  "  in  no  re- 
spect is  satan  more  truly  criminal  as  a  tempter 
than  God  is" — that  '*  we  ought  to  praise  God  for 
all  the  sin  which  we  and  others  have  ever  com- 
mitted"— that  "the  worst  kind  of  moral  action 
is  the  best" — and  that  "  mankind  are  bound  to 
believe  that  they  shall  please  and  glorify  God 
more  by  sin,  than  by  obedience,  and  therefore  to 
act  accordingly."  Now  is  it  possible  for  a  man 
to  receive  "  for  substance  of  doctrine,"  a  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  when  he  believes  it  to  contain 
such  horrid  and  blasphemous  errors  ? 

In  this  Manifesto,  as  I  have  already  remarked, 
the  Professors  take  notice  of  the  establishment 
of  the  Seminary  at  East  Windsor,  and  endeavor 
to  make  the  impression  that  the  founders  and 
friends  of  the  new  institution  are  laboring  under 
a  delusion  in  supposing  that  any  important  errors 
are  taught  in  the  New  Haven  School ;  and  that 
under  the  influence  of  this  delusion,  they  have 
gone  forward  to  establish  a  Seminary  which  is 
not  called  for,  and  ought  not  to  be  patronized  by 
the  Christian  public.  This  attack  called  forth 
the  Appeal  of  the  Trustees,  which  I  have  al- 
ready mentioned.  To  this  Appeal,  the  Profes- 
sors replied,  in  a  manner  and  with  a  spirit,  which 
did  them  little  credit.  About  the  same  time  the 
Rev.  Mr.   Dow  published  a  pamphlet,  the  object 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  85 

of  which  is  to  show  what  is  the  New  Haven  Di- 
vinity. It  is  made  up  of  extracts  from  the  wri- 
tings of  the  New  Haven  Divines,  together  with 
some  short  comments,  suited  to  show  the  nature 
and  tendency  of  their  doctrines.  This  book  is 
very  useful  to  any  one  who  wishes  to  ascertain 
what  the  new  divinity  of  New  England  is,  with- 
out looking  over  the  various  publications  in 
which  it  has  been  taught  for  the  last  eight  or 
ten  years. 

I  am  yours,  very  affectionately. 


LETTER    X 


March  15, 1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

You  desire  to  know  what  has  been  Dr.  Beech- 
er's  course  in  relation  to  the  recent  controver- 
sies in  New  England,  and  to  what  extent  he  has 
identified  himself  with  the  New  Haven  divines. 
I  regret  exceedingly  that  there  should  be  any 
occasion  for  such  inquiries.  A  minister  of  Dr. 
Beecher's  age  and  standing  in  the  church,  ought 
to  be  '*'  an  epistle  known  and  read  by  all  men."^ 
There  ought  to  be  no  cause  for  doubt  or  supi- 
cion  in  regard  to  his  theological  opinions.  And 
yet,  I  suppose  it  to  be  true,  that  notwithstanding 
all  which  has  been  said  and  written  by  himself 
and  others,  there  are  even  now,  very  different 
opinions  in  regard  to  his  doctrinal  views.  There 
are  those  who  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that,  on 
most  points  at  least,  he  is  a  thorough  Calvinist, 
and  that  his  sentiments  are  entirely  opposed  to 
the  New  Haven  speculations ;  while  there  are 
others  who  are  equally  confident  that  his  views,, 
in  the  main,  coincide  with  those  of  Dr.  Taylor. 
How  he  has  contrived  to  make  these  different 
impressions  on  the  minds  of  different  individu-^ 


NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY. 


87 


als,  and  I  may  add,  on  the  minds  of  the  same 
individuals,  at  different  times,  is  a  question  which 
some  have  found  it  very  difficult  to  answer. 

That  he  does  not  agree  on  all  points  with  the 
New  Haven  divines,  is  certainly  true,  if  any  con- 
fidence is  to  be  reposed  in  the  statements  con- 
tained in  his  "  Views  in  Theology,"  recently 
published.  On  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  for 
instance,  his  views  and  theirs  are  irreconcileably 
at  variance.  Instead  of  maintaining  that  "  man- 
kind come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature 
in  kind  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created," 
that  "  they  possess  no  constitutional  propensity 
to  sin,"  that  "  infants  are  innocent,"  or  have 
"  no  moral  character,"  that  "  they  sustain  the 
same  relation  to  the  moral  government  of  God  as 
brute  animals,"  he  maintains  directly  the  oppo- 
site of  these  opinions.     He  says  : 

"  It  would  seem  that  I  am  supposed  to  hold 
the  Pelagian  doctrine  on  the  subject ;  that  1  deny 
that  Adam  was  the  federal  head  and  represen- 
tative of  his  race — that  the  covenant  was  made 
not  only  with  Adam,  but  also  with  his  posterity ; 
that  the  guilt  of  his  sin  was  imputed  to  them ; 
that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  native  depravity ; 
or  that  infants  are  depraved.  That  on  the  con- 
trary I  hold  and  teach,  that  infants  are  innocent, 
and  as  pure  as  Adam  before  the  fall  ;  and  that 
each  one  stands  or  falls  for  himself,  as  he  rises 
to  personal  accountability ;  and  that  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  original  sin,  descending 
from  Adam  by  ordinary  generation  ;  and  that 
original  sin  is  not  sin,  or  in  any  sense  de- 
serving of  God's  wrath  and  curse.  Now 
every  one  of  these  assumed  errors  of  my   faith, 


88  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

I  deny  to  be  my  faith."  He  says  also,  ''Adam 
was  created  holy,  and  placed  in  a  state  of  proba- 
tion, the  consequences  of  which  were  to  extend  not 
only  to  himself,  but  to  his  posterity.  If  he  con- 
tinued holy,  they  would  be  born  holy.  If  he  be- 
came a  sinner,  his  children  would  be  born  de- 
praved. In  the  hour  of  temptation,  he  fell,  and 
lost  FOR  A  WORLD  the  inheritance  of  life,  and  en- 
tailed upon  it  the  sad  inheritance  of  depravity 
and  wo.  For,  if  by  one  man's  offence  death 
reigned  by  one,  how  did  death  reign  by  one 
man's  offence,  if  the  depravity  of  his  race  was 
not  the  consequence  of  his  sin  ?  If  his  poster- 
ity are  born  holy,  (innocent)  and  become  sinners 
by  their  own  act,  uninfluenced  by  what  Adam 
did,  then  death  enters  the  world  not  by  one  man; 
but  by  every  man.  And  so  death  has  passed 
upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned  ;  passed 
upon  infants  possessing  a  depraved  nature, 
though  they  had  not  committed  actual  sin.  They, 
as  well  as  adults  are  subject  to  pain  and  death. 
They,  as  well  as  adults,  need  a  Saviour,  and  a 
change  of  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  fit  them 
for  heaven."  He  says  again,  "  Original  sin  is 
the  effect  of  Adam's  sin  upon  the  constitution  of 
his  race,  in  consequence  of  his  being  their  fede-^ 
ral  head  and  representative,  by  divine  appoint--^ 
ment  or  covenant."  "  It  consists  in  the  perver-^ 
sion  of  those  constitutional  powers  and  suscep- 
tibilities,  which  in  Adam  before  the  fall  eventual 
ted  in  actual  and  perfect  obedience,  and  which, 
in  their  perverted  condition  by  the  fall,  eventu- 
ate in  actual  and  total  depravity."  "  It  is  a  bias 
or  tendency  of  nature  to  actual  sin,  which  baffles 
all  motives,  and  all  influence,  short  of  Omnipo- 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  09 

tence,  to  prevent  its  eventiiation  in  total  actual 
depravity,  or  to  restore  the  perverted  will  and 
affections  to  holy  obedience."  "  It  is  denomina- 
ted by  Edwards,  and  justly,  an  exceedingly  evil 
and  depraved  nature." 

In  these  passages,  Dr.  Beecher  advances  the 
very  principles  which  Dr.  Taylor  represents  as 
involving  the  positions  that  "  God  is  the  respon- 
sible author  of  sin,"  that  "to  sin  is  the  very 
end  of  man's  creation,  the  highest  end  of  his 
being,  the  chief  end  of  man,"  that  "  man  is 
doomed  to  sin  by  a  natural  and  fatal  necessity," 
that  "  he  is  naturally  unable  to  avoid  sin^  and  be- 
come holy,  and  therefore  is  not  a  moral  agent," 
"  that  the  terms  of  salvation,  and  the  exhibition 
of  motives  to  comply  with  them  are  a  delusive 
mockery,"  that  "  the  true  and  only  reason  why 
sinners  are  lost,  is  not,  that  they  do  not  act,  but 
that  God  does  not,"  and  that  '"  in  respect  to  any 
capacity  for  happiness  from  the  objects  of  right 
affection,  man  as  he  is  constituted  by  his  Maker, 
js  like  a  stone  or  corpse." 

On  the  subject  of  God's  ability  to  prevent  sin, 
and  sanctify  the  hearts  of  men,  the  statements  of 
Dr.  Beecher  are  also  entirely  opposed  to  those 
which  have  come  from  the  New  Haven  school. 
Just  notice  the  following  statement  of  Dr.  Tay- 
lor :  "  How  is  it  that  God  says,  Isaiah  v.  4,  that 
he  has  done  all  that  can  be  done  to  bring  sinners 
to  repentance,  when  he  could  do  more  if  he 
would,  and  would  do  more,  did  he  not,  on  the 
whole,  prefer  their  continued  sin  to  their  repent- 
ance ?  '  My  child,'  says  a  father,  '  never  steal  ; 
jiever  lie  ;  I  have  no  pleasure  at  all  that  you 
phould,  compared  with  being  honest  and  true. 
8* 


90  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

'  But  then,  my  child,'  he  proceeds,  '  I  greatly  pre-, 
fer,  on  the  whole,  that  you  should  steal  and  lie, 
at  least  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten ;  for  stealing 
and  lying,  in  these  instances,  will  be  the  best 
thing  you  can  do  ;  and  though  I  shall  do  every 
thing  that  can  be  done  to  secure  your  obedience 
to  my  law,  yet  I  could  do  much  more  if  I  would  ; 
and  I  would  do  it,  if  I  did  not,  on  the  whole, 
prefer  your  stealing  and  lying  to  honesty  and 
truth."  '  Compare  this  with  the  following  from 
Dr.  Beecher  : 

''  That  God  is  able,  by  his  direct  and  immedi-. 
ate  power  to  approach  the  mind  in  every  faculty, 
and  to  touch  all  the  springs  of  action  and  affec-. 
tion,  I  have  never  denied  or  doubted.  And  that 
he  is  able,  by  the  direct  interposition  of  his  pow- 
er, so  to  rectify  the  mind  of  man  as  disordered 
by  the  fall,  as  that  the  consequence  would  be  the 
immediate,  unperverted  exercise  of  the  will  and 
affections  in  obedience,  is  just  as  evident  as  that 
God  can  create  minds  in  such  a  condition  that 
they  will,  in  these  respects,  go  right  from  the 
beginning.  I  have  no  sympathy  for  the  opinion 
that  it  depends  on  sinners  whether  they  be  re- 
generated or  not,  in  the  day  of  his  power — or 
that  God  DOES  all  he  can,  and  leaves  the  event 
of  submission  or  not,  to  rebel  man.  The  passa- 
ges quoted  to  prove  such  an  assertion  are  misun- 
derstood and  perverted.  The  texts,  *  what  could 
have  been  done  more  to  my  vineyard  that  I  have 
not  done  in  it,'  (Isa.  v.  4.)  and  '  he  could  not  do 
many  mighty  works  there  because  of  their  unbe- 
lief,' and  other  kindred  passages  do  not  teach 
that  God  is  ever  efficaciously  resisted  by  any  sin- 
.ner  whom   he  attempts  to  subdue,  or  that  there 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    TIIEOLOnY.  91 

is  any  sinner  on  earth  so  stubborn  and  obstinate 
that  God  could  not  reconcile  him  if  it  seemed 
good  in  his  sight.  The  limitation  is  of  God's 
unerring  wisdom,  and  is  the  same  as  when 
it  is  said,  he  cannot  deny  himself,  or  cannot  lie, 
or  where  God  himself  says,  '  though  Moses  and 
Samuel  stood  before  me,  yet  my  mind  -could  not 
be  towards  this  people.'  " 

This,  you  will  perceive,  is  in  direct  opposition 
io  the  views  of  Dr.  Taylor.  And  not  only  so, 
Dr.  Beecher  has  here  advanced  the  very  princi- 
ple which,  according  to  Dr.  Taylor,  "  leads  to 
Universalism,  to  Infidelity,  and  to  Atheism," 
"  the  principle  which,  in  the  hands  of  Voltaire, 
and  other  enemies  of  the  gospel,  has  spread  infi- 
delity and  atheism  to  such  a  fearful  extent 
throughout  Europe,"  and  which  involves  all  the 
horrid  blasphemies  which  he  has  charged  upon 
Drs.  Woods  and  Tyler. 

A  large  part  of  Dr.  Beecher's  book  is  adapted 
-to  make  a  favorable  impression  upon  the  minds 
of  orthodox  readers.  On  all  the  subjects  of 
which  he  treats,  except  that  of  moral  agency,  his 
statements,  so  far  as  they  go,  will  be  regarded 
as  generally  sound.  On  this  topic,  however, 
(moral  agency)  he  has  advanced  principles  which 
lead  inevitably  to  Arminian  conclusions.  And 
on  some  other  topics,  his  statements  do  not  con- 
tain a  full  view  of  his  sentiments.  On  the  doc- 
trine of  regeneration,  for  instance,  no  one  would 
conjecture  from  what  he  has  published,  "  that 
he  does  not  believe  in  the  direct  and  immediate 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration." 

Yet  such  is  not  his  belief,  unless  he  has  quite 
recently  altered  his  opinion.     He  maintains,  as  1 


92  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

happen  to  know  from  repeated  conversations  with 
him  on  the  subject,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  never 
operates  directly  on  the  heart  in  regeneration, 
(except  perhaps  in  the  case  of  infants,  idiots, 
&LQ,.)  but  only  through  the  medium  of  truth  and 
motives — that  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  a 
persuasive  influence,  analogous  to  the  influence 
which  one  man  exerts  over  the  mind  of  another. 
This  is  what  has  been  denominated  the  doctrine 
of  Divine  moral  suasion."  It  is  the  same  doc- 
trine which  was  maintained  by  a  certain  popular 
preacher  of  the  present  day,  when  he  said, 
*'  Were  I  as  eloquent  as  the  Holy  Ghost,  I  could 
convert  sinners  as  well  as  He/'  and  the  same 
doctrine  which  is  taught  by  Mr.  Finney,  in  his 
sermon  on  making  a  new  heart,  in  which  he  says, 
•'  In  renewing  men,  the  Spirit  employs  means, 
He  does  not  come  and  take  right  hold  of  the 
heart,  and  perform  an  operation  upon  it ;  but  he 
presents  motives;  he  persuades  by  meang  of 
truth,  and  the  heart  is  overcome.  To  change 
men's  hearts  requires  only  the  presentation  of 
truth  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  His  influence  dif- 
fers not  at  all  from  that  of  the  preacher  except 
in  degree."  This  sermon  Mr.  Finney  preached 
in  Boston,  at  the  time  of  which  Dr.  Beecher 
speaks  when  he  says,  *'  It  will  be  long  before  I 
again  hear  so  much  truth  with  as  little  to  object 
to,  in  the  manner  of  its  exhibition,  in  the  same 
space  of  time." 

Most  of  Dr.  Beecher's  book,  as  I  have  already 
intimated,  is  adapted  to  make  the  impression  that 
he  does  not  adopt  the  peculiarities  of  the  New 
Haven  School.  And  many  things  which  he  has^ 
at  divers  times,  said  to  his  intimate  friends  wh.Q 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  93 

he  knew  were  opposed  to  these  peculiarities, 
(such  as  Dr.  Porter,  Dr.  Woods,  Dr.  Tyler,  Mr. 
Nettleton,  6lc.)  have  been  adapted  to  make  the 
same  impression  on  their  minds.  He  has  some- 
times spoken  freely,  and  in  terms  of  strong  dis- 
approbation of  Dr.  Taylor's  writings,  and  of  the 
manner  in  which  he  had  conducted  the  contro- 
versy. He  has  also  made  such  statements  in 
regard  to  his  own  sentiments,  as  to  convince 
them  that  he  could  not  adopt  the  New  Haven 
opinions. 

But  notwithstanding  all  this,  truth  obliges  me 
to  say,  that,  in  my  apprehension,  Dr.  Beecher 
is  in  a  high  degree  responsible  for  the  spread  of 
these  opinions.  It  is  through  his  influence, 
more  than  that  of  any  other  man,  that  they  have 
gained  so  much  favor  in  the  eyes  of  the  commu- 
nity. He  has  been  an  apologist  for  them.  He 
has  had  no  sympathy  with  those  who  have  been 
distressed  on  account  of  them  ;  but  has  uni- 
formly frowned  on  every  expression  of  alarm.^ 
He  has  insisted  that  the  New  Haven  divines  are 
orthodox,  and  that  their  sentiments  are  fraught 
with  no  dangerous  tendencies.  He  has  express- 
ed it  as  his  "  full  and  deliberate  belief,"  that 
these  sentiments  "  will  prevail  and  predominate 
both  in  New  England  and  elsewhere."  He  has 
occasionally  thrown  out  intimations  "  that  the 
theology  of  New  England  is  running  down  to 
natural  inability,  and  old  Calvinism — and  wait- 
ing God's  time,  and  formality,  and  Triangular- 
ism," — that  "  old  Calvinism  must  go  down," — 
that,  "  the  system  of  Calvinism  needs  to  be  ex- 
amined and  discussed  by  a  new  and  original 
investigation  of  all  the  points," — and   that   the 


94  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

result  will  be,  "  the  sifting  out  of  false  philoso- 
phy," and  the  burning  up  of  "  wood,  hay,  and 
stubble,"  enough  of  which  he  thinks  there  is  even 
in  New  England,  "  if  brought  out  and  laid  on 
one  pile  to  make  a  great  bonfire."  Although  I 
write  '*  currente  calamo,"  I  am  not  writing  at  ran- 
dom. I  state  nothing  of  which  I  have  not  the 
proof  in  my  possession. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  New  Haven  divines  and 
all  their  adherents,  have  considered  Dr.  Beecher 
as  agreeing  with  them  in  sentiment,  and  siding 
with  them  in  their  controversies.  They  have 
not  hesitated  to  make  use  of  his  name,  in 
public  and  in  private,  in  conversation,  in  letters, 
and  through  the  press,  to  promote  the  prevalence 
of  their  views  ;  and  so  far  as  I  have  known,  he 
has  not  been  disposed  to  contradict  their  state- 
ments. He  has  seemed,  at  least,  to  be  willing  to 
have  them  understand  that  he  did  accord  with 
them  in  their  views  and  measures. 

Dr.  Taylor  has  been  in  the  habit  of  submit- 
ing  his  controversial  articles  to  Dr.  Beecher  for 
inspection  previous  to  their  publication.  This 
was  the  fact  in  regard  to  the  Review  of  Dr.  Ty- 
ler's remarks,  published  in  the  Christian  Specta- 
tor, for  September,  1832,  some  account  of  which 
I  gave  you  in  my  seventh  letter.  It  was  true  in 
reo-ard  to  Dr.  Taylor's  communications  for  the 
Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  his  controversy  with 
Dr.  Tyler.  In  one  instance,  Dr.  Beecher  took 
so  much  liberty  with  a  communication,  that  Dr. 
Taylor  in  a  subsequent  number  had  occasion  to 
make  the  following  remark  :  "  Here  I  shall  first 
advert  to  an  error  in  phraseology  which,  though 
not  my  own,  occurred  in  some  instances,  in  my 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  95 

reply  to  Dr.  Tyler's  remarks.  This  arose  from  the 
insertion  of  a  passage,  while  my  reply  was  passing 
through  the  press  by  one  of  the  conductors  of  the 
Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims.  For  the  liberty  thus  taken^ 
I  am  not  disposed  to  censure  my  friend,  consider- 
ing our  long  intimacy,  and  the  coincidence  of  our 
views  on  theological  subjects,  and  the  desire  from 
which  it  sprung  of  giving  an  additional  illustra- 
tion of  my  opinions." 

That  Dr.  Beecher  is  the  "  friend,"  here  referred 
to,  was  well  understood,  and  you  will  perceive 
that  Dr.  Taylor  here,  in  this  public  manner, 
claims  "  a  coincidence  of  views,"  with  Dr. 
Beecher,  "on  theological  subjects,"  This  was 
published  under  Dr.  Beecher's  own  eye,  and  suf- 
fered to  pass  without  contradiction.  All  the 
young  men  who  have  come  out  from  the  New 
Haven  School,  and  all  others  who  have  adopted 
the  peculiar  sentiments  of  that  School  have  rep- 
resented Dr.  Beecher  as  an  advocate  of  these 
sentiments.  It  has  been  proclaimed  by  them 
through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land  ;  and 
it  is  owing  to  their  representations  more  than  to 
those  of  any  other  persons,  that  the  orthodoxy 
of  Dr.  Beecher  has  been  so  extensively  suspected. 
Some  of  his  intimate  friends,  particularly  Mr. 
Nettleton,  did  for  a  long  time  feel  authorised 
to  contradict  these  representations.  He  did 
suppose,  from  statements  which  Dr.  Beecher 
made  to  him,  and  from  writings  which  he  read  to 
him,  and  which  he  talked  of  publishing,  that  he 
did  not  agree  with  Dr.  Taylor,  and  that  he 
intended  he  should  so  understand  him.  Accord* 
ingly,  when  he  found  at  the  South,  reports  in  cir- 
culation that  Dr.  Beecher  accorded  in  his  doctri- 


96  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

nal  views  with  the  New  Haven  divines,  he  took  the 
liberty  to  contradict  them.  Wherever  he  went  he 
vindicated  Dr.  Beecher,  and  it  was  in  consequence 
of  his  representations  that  Dr.  Miller  and  Dr. 
Green  were  led  to  repose  that  confidence  in  Dr. 
Beecher  which  was  expressed  in  their  letters  to 
him  which  he  exhibited  on  his  trial.  But  in 
1830,  Dr.  Beecher  called  Mr.  Nettleton  to  an 
account  for  reporting  that  he  did  not  agree  with 
..  Dr.  Taylor.  Since  that  time,  he  has  not  felt  at 
*  liberty  to  contradict  the  representations  which 
the  friends  of  the  New  Haven  Divinity  have  been 
continually  making. 

From  what  I  have  written,  you  will  perceive 
that  in  the  estimation  of  some  of  his  brethren, 
the  course  of  Dr.  Beecher  has  not  been,  in  all 
respects,  so  consistent  as  it  might  have  been. 
What  you  experienced  when  you  heard  him 
preach  two  sermons  during  the  session  of  the 
last  General  Assembly  is  a  specimen  of  the  ex- 
perience of  some  of  his  brethren  for  a  course 
of  years.  Their  hearts  have  been  alternately 
rejoiced  and  pained.  They  have  loved  Dr. 
Beecher.  They  have  often  listened  to  his  voice 
with  intense  delight.  They  have  blessed  God  for 
the  good  accomplished  through  his  instrumen- 
tality, and  they  have  been  grieved  and  distressed 
that  his  influence  should  be  perverted  to  promote 
the  prevalenceof  what  they  believe  to  be  danger- 
ous error. 

For  many  years  after  his  first  settlement  in 
New  England,  he  enjoyed  the  entire  confidence 
of  his  brethren.  He,  and  Dr.  Porter  and  Dr. 
Harvey,  and  Dr.  Tyler,  were  located  in  neigh- 
boring parishes,  and  lived  on  terms  of  the  great- 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  97 

est  intimacy.  He  and  Mr.  Nettleton  were  true 
yokefellows  in  the  cause  of  revivals.  In  those 
days,  we  heard  from  him  no  suspicions  of  a  ten- 
dency in  New  England  ministers  to  "  hyper-Cal- 
vinism and  antinomian  fatality  ;"  and  no  intima- 
tions of  the  necessity  of  a  reform  in  the  system 
of  New  England  orthodoxy.  Those  were  days 
of  peace  and  harmony,  and  brotherly  love  among 
the  ministers  of  New  England.  But  we  have 
fallen  on  other  times.  That  harmony  of  senti- 
ment which  so  long  prevailed  exists  no  longer. 
New  doctrines  have  been  broached,  and  are  zeal- 
ously propagated  ;  and  to  what  extent  the  defec- 
tion may  be  suifered  to  go,  is  known  only  to  Him 
who  seeth  the  end  from  the  becrinnincr.  But  it  is 
consoling  to  reflect  that  Zion's  God  reigneth,  and 
that  he  is  able  to  bring  light  out  of  darkness, 
and  order  out  of  confusion,  and  to  overrule  all 
the  commotions  of  this  sin-distracted  world  for 
the  promotion  of  his  own  glory,  and  the  greatest 
possible  good. 

I  am  yours,  very  affectionately. 


LETTER  XI. 

March  20,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

You  will  naturally  inquire  to  what  extent  does 
the  new  divinity  prevail  in  New  England? — in 
other  words,  how  large  a  proportion  of  the  New 
England  ministers  adopt  the  peculiar  sentiments 
of  the  New  Haven  School  ?  On  this  point,  I 
can  only  give  you  my  opinion,  as  I  have  iio  data 
from  which  to  make  out  an  accurate  calculation. 
Different  individuals  would  doubtless  give  differ- 
ent answers  to  this  question.  The  New  Haven 
divines  would  probably  tell  you  that  their  views 
prevail  very  extensively  in  New  England ;  that 
quite  a  large  proportion  of  the  ministers  adopt 
them.  I  am  satisfied,  however,  that  their  esti- 
mates are  far  from  being  correct. 

It  appears  from  Dr.  Porter's  letter  to  Dr. 
Beecher,  that  when  he  informed  him  that  one  of 
his  brethren  was  dissatisfied  on  hearing  him 
preach  a  certain  sermon,  Dr.  Beecher  acknowl- 
edged that  probably  three  fourths  of  his  brethren 
would  have  had  the  same  feelings  in  the  same 
circumstances. 


NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  99 

In  a  letter  to  a  friend,  dated  August  6,  1832, 
Dr.  Porter  says  :  "  Our  orthodox  community  for 
near  a  century  had  been  but  little  disturbed,  till 
this  new  luminary  appeared,  and  volunteered  to 
shed  darkness  on  the  world.  He  wrote  and  talk- 
ed and  talked  and  wrote;  and  what  has  been  the 
result?  The  great  body  of  ministers  said-  for  a 
while,  *  we  do  not  know  what  he  means.'  He 
has  been  reputed  sound  in  the  faith,  and  all  this 
vaunted  originality,  consisting  of  novelty  and 
obscurity  in  diction,  and  paradoxical  boldness, 
is  at  bottom  rather  bad  taste,  than  bad  theology. 
He  complained  of  the  obtuseness  of  readers  that 
could  not  understand  him  ; — wrote  again — and 
then  again  ;  and  then  complained  bitterly  that  so 
many  misunderstood  him.  After  a  long  time,  a 
few  men  say,  '  Dr.  Taylor  is  right,  and  Calvinism 
is  wrong' — a  few  others,  much  fewer  than  he 
supposes,  say,  •  Dr.  Taylor  is  right,  and  Calvin- 
ism is  right  too — he  is  a  consistent  Calvinist.' 
This  latter  number  is  not  one  tenth  of  the  New 
England  ministers,  and  not  one  hundredth  of 
those  that  are  thirty-five  years  old.  The  great 
body  of  ministers  now  say  he  is  wrong — not  al- 
together so,  of  course — but  wrong  on  his  own 
favorite  points." 

Such  was  the  language  of  Dr.  Porter  in  l8o2. 
Dr.  Woods,  in  his  eighth  letter  published  in  1830, 
says  :  "  I  feel  myself  constrained  to  say,  that  the 
theory  which  you  adopt  in  distinction  from  the 
common  theory,  appears  to  me,  generally,  so  far 
as  I  understand  it,  to  be  unscriptural  and  of  dan- 
gerous tendency.  And  the  more  I  examine  it, 
the  farther  I  am  from  being  satisfied  with  it. 
And  this  is  the  case  with  the  orthodox  communi- 


100  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

ty,  to  an  extent,  as  I  have  reason  to  think,  far 
beyond  your  apprehension.  Compared  with  the 
whole  body  of  Congregational  and  Presbyterian 
ministers,  there  are  very  few  who  embrace  your 
opinions."  Whether  these  estimates  are  correct 
or  not,  I  am  confident  that  Dr.  Taylor's  peculiar- 
ities are  adopted  far  less  extensively  than  he  is 
wont  to  imagine.  Indeed,  I  have  rarely  met  with 
a  minister,  excepting  those^ young  men  who  have 
been  educated  in  his  school,  who  is  willing  to 
express  his  unqualified  approbation  of  Dr.  Tay- 
lor's speculations.  Many  even  of  those  who  are 
apologists  for  these  speculations,  and  who  lend 
their  influence  to  promote  their  prevalence,  are 
unwilling  to  be  considered  Taylorites,  and  are 
very  careful  to  tell  you  that  they  do  not  adopt  all 
Dr.  Taylor's  opinions.  Or  if  they  do  not  object 
particularly  to  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Haven 
School,  they  will  tell  you  they  do  not  like  the 
spirit  with  which  those  doctrines  are  inculcated. 
I  have  just  seen  a  letter  written  a  little  more  than 
three  years  ago  by  a  minister  of  some  distinction 
in  New  England,  who  is  considered  by  the  New 
Haven  divines  as  one  of  their  warmest  friends 
and  adherents,  in  which  he  says  :  *'  I  am  frank  to 
say,  that  I  see  some  things  connected  with  the 
theological  department  in  Yale  College  which  I 
cannot  approve.  I  refer  to  the  speculative  cast 
of  the  system  there  taught,  and  to  the  gi  eat 
prominence  which  is  given  to  some  points,  which, 
to  say  the  least,  are  of  very  little  importance, 
and  are  deemed  by  many  to  be  of  bad  tendency. 
I  probably  see  less  to  fear  in  their  system  on  the 
score  of  heresy  than  you  and  some  others  do. 
But  I  see  much  in  the  spirit  and  manner  in  which 


OP    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  lOl 

that  system  is  inculcated,  which  I  deeply  regret, 
and  which  I  should  heartily  rejoice  to  see  any 
judicious  measures  adopted  to  correct." 

But  a  large  proportion  of  the  ministers  of  New 
England  do  not  adopt  any  of  the  peculiar  senti- 
ments of  the  New  Haven  School.  Their  views 
of  doctrine  accord  with  those  inculcated  in  the 
writings  of  our  standard  divines ;  such  as  Ed- 
wards Bellamy,  D wight,  &dc.     But  although  the 

crreat  mass  of  the  New  England   ministers  are 

.  .  .         . 

sound  in  the  faith,  and  united  in  their  views  of 

Christian  doctrine,  and  in  the  rejection  of  the 
Nevv  Haven  errors ; — yet  they  entertain  different 
opinions  as  to  the  manner  in  which  these  errors 
should  be  regarded  and  treated.  There  are 
those,  (and  the  number  is  not  small)  who  regard 
them  as  dangerous- — as  tending  to  sap  the  foun- 
dation of  the  evangelical  system.  They  look 
upon  their  prevalence  with  distress  and  alarm, 
and  feel  it  to  be  their  duty  to  bear  their  testimo- 
ny against  them.  You  have  already  seen  from 
the  several  extracts  which  I  have  given  you  from 
Dr.  Porter's  letters,  in  what  point  of  light  he  re- 
garded them.  The  following  statement  of  a 
friend,  will  show  what  were  his  feelings  near  the 
close  of  his  life. 

"  I  called  on  Dr.  Porter  more  frequently  the 
last  two  months  of  his  life,  (I  believe  I  may  say 
the  last  three  months,)  than  usual.  There  was 
something  in  his  pale,  consumptive  face,  and  in 
iiis  solemn  interesting  manner  of  conversing  on 
the  great  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  the  errors 
which  seemed  coming  in  on  the  church,  which 
were  very  impressive.  When  on  these  visits,  I 
have  heard  hjm  as  many,  at  least,  as  three  differ- 
9* 


102  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

ent  times,  and  I  believe  more  than  three,  express 
his  deep  apprehension  in  regard  to  the  sentiments 
of  Dr.  Taylor.  Once  he  said,  'It  would  take  a 
hundred  years  to  do  away  the  evils  brought  on 
the  church  by  his  speculations;  that  Dr.  Taylor 
was  taking  a  fearful  responsibility  on  himself ; 
that  Edwards  fought  a  great  battle  with  the  Ar- 
minians,  and  gained  the  victory,  but  now  all  was 
to  be  gone  over  again.'  " 

Dr.  Humphrey,  in  a  letter  written  Nov.  4, 
1833,  an  extract  from  which  was  published  in  the 
Southern  Religious  Telegraph,  says  :  "  My  opin- 
ion expressed  freely  and  every  where  is,  that  the 
gentlemen  there,  (at  New  Haven)  are  building 
their  system  on  philosophy,  more  than  on  the 
Bible  ;  that  this  philosophy  is  Arminian,  and  of 
course  can  never  support  a  Calvinistic  creed. 
The  tendency  of  the  scheme,  I  solemnly  believe, 
is  to  bring  in  a  flood  of  Arminianism,  or  rather 
perhaps,  I  ought  to  say  Pelagianism  upon  our 
churches.  Where  this  tendency  will  stop,  I 
know  not.  If  not  arrested,  I  fear  it  may  end  in 
fundamental  error." 

Dr.  Woods  in  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Plura- 
mer,  dated  Feb.  8,  1836,  says :  '*  I  believe  what 
you  sayj  that  there  is  a  perfect  understanding 
among  those  in  every  part  of  our  country  who 
are  opposed  to  Calvinism,  and  that  they  are  act- 
ing in  concert — that  there  is  an  alarmino-  loose- 
ness  among  young  preachers ;  and  that  there  is  a 
fixed  determination  to  maintain  a  party  holding 
loose  opinions — and  that  there  must  be  a  battle 
fought  here  and  there  and  every  where,  (only  let 
it  not  be  fought  with  carnal  weapons.)  And  I 
agree  with  you,  that  there  must  be  a  friendly  and 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  103 

brotherly  understanding  among  all  who  hold  fast 
the  great  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  that  the  love 
of  the  truth  must  bind  them  together,  though 
they  do  not  think  exactly  alike  on  minor  points. 
I  agree,  too,  that  men  of  influence  must  lift  up 
their  voice,  and  that  we  ought  to  make  known 
what  were  the  views  of  distinguished  men,  who 
have  had  a  high  reputation,  but  who  have  gone 
to  their  rest,  such  as  you  mention.  The  fact  is, 
that  Dr.  Porter,  Mr.  Evarts,  and  Dr.  Cornelius, 
were  most  deeply  alarmed  and  distressed  with  the 
loose  speculations  which  have  come  from  the 
New  Haven  School,  and  from  Mr.  Finney  and 
others  of  that  stamp.  I  know  how  they  all  felt, 
and  what  a  full  conviction  they  had  that  the  no- 
tions which  were  peculiar  to  Dr.  Taylor  and  Mr. 
Finney,  would  undermine  the  fair  fabric  of  our 
evangelical  churches,  and  spread  a  system  far 
more  unscriptural  and  pernicious  than  Wesleyan 
Methodism."  Dr.  Griffin,  speaking  of  the  New 
Haven  sentiments,  says  :  "  I  consider  the  honory 
of  raising  to  spiritual  life,  a  world  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins,  as  one  of  the  brightest  glories 
of  the  Godhead ;  and  I  have  been  grieved  at  my 
heart  to  see  this  honor  taken  away.  This  has 
been  the  severest  cut  of  all." 

Dr.  Tyler  in  his  strictures,  published  in  1829, 
says  :  '*  1  cannot  but  express  my  conviction,  that 
he,  (Dr.  Taylor)  has  taken  positions  which,  when 
followed  into  their  legitimate  consequences,  will 
lead  to  the  subversion  of  the  doctrines  of  grace." 
And  again  :  "  Nothing  but  the  fullest  conviction 
of  the  dangerous  tendency  of  these  speculations, 
and  the  necessity  of  some  counteracting  influ- 


104  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

ence,  could  have  induced  the  writer  to  appear  in 
this  manner  before  the  public." 

Mr.  Nettleton,  in  a  communication  written  by 
him  in  Feb.  1834,  after  having  read  an  article  in 
the  Christian  Spectator,  entitled,  "  What  is  the 
real  difference  between  the  New  Haven  divines 
and  those  who  oppose  them?"  shows  that  the 
positions  laid  down  in  that  article  tend  to  subvert 
the  scriptural  doctrine  of  regeneration,  and  ob- 
serves :  "  On  the  whole,  their  views  of  depravity, 
of  regeneration,  and  of  the  mode  of  preaching 
to  sinners,  I  think,  cannot  fail  of  doing  very 
great  mischief.  This  exhibition  overlooks  the 
most  alarming  features  of  human  depravity,  and 
the  very  essence  of  experimental  religion.  It  is 
directly  calculated  to  prevent  sinners  from  com- 
ing under  conviction  of  sin,  and  to  make  them 
think  well  of  themselves  while  in  an  unregene- 
rated  state.  It  flatters  others  with  the  delusion, 
that  they  may  give  their  hearts  to  God,  or  that 
they  have  already  done  it,  while  their  propensi- 
ty to  sin  remains  in  all  its  strength."  "  I  know 
that  converts  may  be  made  by  hundreds  and  by 
thousands  on  these  principles  with  perfect  ease, 
for  so  it  has  been  in  former  times  among  different 
sects  in  New  England,  as  I  have  had  full  oppor- 
tunity to  know.  But  piety  never  did  and  never 
will  descend  far  in  the  line  of  these  sentiments. 
Were  I  to  preach  the  sentiments  contained  in 
that  article,  I  do  solemnly  believe  that  I  should 
be  the  means  of  healing  the  hurt  of  awakened 
sinners  slightly,  and  be  guilty  of  crying  peace, 
peace,  when  there  is  no  peace,  and  of  throwing 
the  whole  weight  of  my  ministerial  influence  op 
the  side  of  human  rebellion  against  God." 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  105 

These  extracts  will  give  you  a  specimen  of  the 
views  and  feelings  which  are  entertained  by  a 
large  number  of  the  ministers  of  New  England. 
Such,  however,  are  not  the  feelings  of  all  who 
do  not  adopt  the  peculiarites  of  the  New  Haven 
School.  There  are  some  who,  through  love  of 
peace  and  dread  of  controversy,  persuade  them- 
selves that  the  best  way  to  remedy  the  evil  is  to 
let  it  alone.  Others,  not  having  read  much  of 
the  discussions  which  have  been  published,  and 
of  course  having  only  a  vague  and  indefinite 
knowledge  of  the  points  in  controversy,  flatter 
themselves  that  the  difference  is  not  so  great  as 
many  have  supposed — while  others,  after  having 
read  some  of  Dr.  Taylor's  writings,  and  found 
themselves  unable  to  understand  them,  have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  nobody  can  understand 
him,  and  that  all  the  diffculty  originates  in  amis- 
understanding.  On  this  point  I  would  just  ob- 
serve, that  if  Dr.  Taylor  cannot  write  so  that  the 
most  distinguished  theologians  in  the  land,  such 
men  as  Dr.  Porter,  Dr.  Woods,  Dr.  Griffin,  Dr. 
Humphrey,  the  Princeton  Professors,  &c,  can 
understand  him,  what  kind  of  a  teacher  of  the- 
ology must  he  be?  Or  to  adopt  the  language  of 
Dr.  Porter  to  Dr.  Beecher,  "  If  he  cannot  make 
clear  heads  combined  with  honest  hearts,  com- 
prehend his  meaning,  what  sort  of  a  system  must 
his  be  to  enlighten  and  save  the  world  ?" 

Still,  however,  the  New  Haven  sentiments  do 
prevail  to  a  considerable  extent.  Those  who 
have  been  zealously  engaged  in  propagating  them, 
have  enjoyed  many  advantages  for  the  prosecution 
of  their  plans,  and  they  have  not  labored  with- 
out some  success. 


106  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

And  what,  you  will  ask,  have  been  the  practi- 
cal results,  so  far  as  they  have  been  developed  ? 
The  answer  to  this  inquiry,  in  the  opinion  of 
many,  at  least,  is  well  expressed  by  a  distinguish- 
ed and  excellent  minister  in  Connecticut,  in  a 
letter  written  Oct.  1,  1833.  He  says:  "The 
New  Haven  theology  lowers,  and  lowers  exceed- 
ingly the  standard  of  our  doctrines,  of  our  revi- 
vals, and  of  real  piety  in  and  out  of  the  State. 
It  turns  every  good  thing  downward,  and  gives 
a  strong  descending  impetus."  Where  these 
sentiments  prevail,  the  great  doctrines  of  the  gos- 
pel are  not  preached  as  they  formerly  were.  Lax 
views  of  doctrine  are  creeping  into  the  churches, 
and  the  character  of  revivals  is  evidently  deteri- 
orating. The  religious  excitements  which  have 
taken  place  where  the  new  divinity  is  preached, 
differ  widely  from  the  revivals  which  took  place 
eighteen,  twenty,  and  twenty-five  years  ago. 
Those  revivals  were  remarkably  pure,  as  time 
has  abundantly  shown.  They  were  characteri- 
sjed  by  deep  and  awful  solemnity,  by  powerful  con- 
victioqs  of  sin,  and  by  a  remarkable  exhibition 
of  the  fruits  of- the  Spirit.  The  converts  were 
meek,  humble,  docile,  and  but  few  apostacies  oc- 
curred among  them.  But  many  of  the  religious 
excitements  of  the  present  day  are  very  transient, 
and  although  a  great  number  of  conversions  is 
sometimes  reported,  yet  it  not  unfrequently  hap- 
pens that,  within  a  short  period,  very  few  of  them 
are  to  be  found.  Many  melancholy  facts  might 
be  given  on  this  subject.  I  will  mention  one  or 
two.  A  year  or  two  since,  I  was  conversing  with 
a  pious  layman  who  resides  in  a  town  where, 
leighteen   months  before,  there  had  been  said  to 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  l()1f 

be  a  very  powerful  and  extensive  revival.  I  en- 
quired of  him  the  state  of  religion.  He  said  it 
was  very  low.  But  I  understand  you  had  a  very 
remarkable  revival  of  religion  in  your  town  win- 
ter  before  last.  *'  Yes,"  said  he,  "  but  converts 
do  not  seem  to  wear  as  they  did  formerly." 
Have  not  the  subjects  of  that  revival  worn  well  ? 
"  Not  at  all,"  he  replied.  Great  numbers,  I  un- 
derstood, were  supposed  to  be  converted,  how 
many  of  them  have  been  added  to  the  church  ? 
**  Not  more  than  six  or  seven,  and  some  of  those 
do  not  adorn  their  profession.*' 

In  another  town  there  was  a  religious  excite- 
ment in  1833,  where  about  forty  youth  were  sup- 
posed to  be  converted.  One  year  afterwards,  I 
was  informed  that  not  one  of  them  had  made  a 
profession  of  religion,  or  at  that  time  gave  any 
decisive  evidence  of  piety.  These  are  specimens 
of  many  facts  which  have  occurred  within  a  few 
years  past  in  New  England  ;  and  not  only  where 
those  wandering  stars,  Mr.  Foote  and  Mr.  Burch- 
ard,  have  been,  but  under  the  ministrations  of 
settled  pastors.  It  was  not  so  under  the  labors 
of  brother  Nettleton ;  nor  under  the  labors  of 
those  New  England  pastors,  through  whose  in- 
strumentality such  accessions  were  made  to  the 
churches  at  the  commencement  of  the  present 
century. 

I  am  yours,  very  affectionately. 


LETTER    XII. 


March  21,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

As  great  pains  have  been  taken  to  make  the 
impression  that  the  New  Haven  divinity  is  New 
England  divinity,  and  in  this  way  to  awaken  jeal- 
ousy and  prejudice  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
against  the  ministers  and  churches  of  New  Eng- 
land generally,  I  have  thought  it  might  be  useful 
to  devote  a  few  letters  to  the  object  of  correcting 
this  impression.  I  have  already  remarked  that 
the  great  body  of  New  England  ministers  ac- 
cord in  sentiment  with  our  standard  theological 
writers,  such  as  Edwards,  Bellamy,  Hopkins, 
Dwight,  Smalley,  Strong,  &c.  What  I  now  pro- 
pose to  show  is,  that  the  New  Haven  divines  have 
departed  from  the  views  maintained  by  these  wri- 
ters. Before  I  proceed  however,  to  adduce  di- 
rect proof  of  this  allegation,  I  will  just  glance  at 
the  opinions  which  are  entertained  of  their  spec- 
ulations by  different  classes  of  the  community. 
Their  writings  have  been  extensively  read,  not 
only  by  Calvinists,  but  by  professed  Arminians 
and  Unitarians.     And  how  are  they  regarded  by 


NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  109 

these  different  classes  of  individuals?  Are  they 
regarded  as  according  with  the  writings  of  those 
who  have  heretofore  been  considered  as  Calvin- 
ists  ?  What  is  the  opinion  of  those  who  are  de- 
nominated Old  School  divines  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  ?  Is  there  an  individual  in  this  nu- 
merous class  of  ministers,  who  does  not  regard 
the  New  Haven  divines  as  having  departed  wide- 
ly from  the  CaKinistic  system?  What  is  the 
opinion  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Richards,  Dr.  Spring, 
Dr.  Woodbridge,  Dr.  Fisher,  Dr.  Hilyer,  and 
many  others  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  who,  as 
Dr.  Miller  says,  "  still  possess  no  small  share  of 
New  England  feelings  V  Do  they  regard  the 
New  Haven  divines  as  consistent  Calvinists?  On 
the  contrary,  do  they  not  think  as  unfavorably  of 
their  speculations  as  any  in  your  church  ?  And 
how  are  these  speculations  regarded  by  the  most 
distincruished  theoloo-ians  of  New  England  ? 
What  were  the  views  entertained  of  them  by 
those  venerable  servants  of  God  now  at  rest.  Dr. 
Hyde,  Dr.  Porter,  Mr.  Evarts,  and  Dr;  Corne- 
lius? Dr.  Hyde,  in  a  letter  dated  April  13,  1830, 
said,  "  I  notice  with  much  trembling  the  pro- 
gress of  error  in  this  land,  and  among  the 
churches  of  New  England.  The  New  Haven 
scheme  of  theology  is  a  broad  step-stone  to  Ar- 
minianism.  You  may  possibly  live  to-have  your 
attachment  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  put  to  a 
severe  test.  The  doctrines  of  sovereign  grace 
are  more  and  more  discarded."  What  were  the 
views  and  feelings  of  Dr.  Porter,  Mr.  Evarts  and 
Dr.  Cornelius,  is  sufficiently  apparent  from  ex- 
tracts inserted  in  my  previous  letters.  And  what 
are  the  opinions  of  such  living  men  as  Dr^  Grif* 
10 


110  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

fin,  Dr.  Church,  Dr.  Woods,  Dr.  Humphrey,  &c. 
"  My  opinion,"  says  Dr.  Humphrey,  "  expressed 
freely,  and  everywhere,   is,  that  the  gentlemen 
there,  (at  New  Haven)  are  building  their  system 
on  philosophy  more  than  on  the  Bible ;  that  this 
philosophy  is  Arminian,  and  can  never  support 
a  Calvinistic   creed.     My  solemn  belief  is,  that 
the  tendency  of  the  scheme  is  to  bring  in  a  flood 
of  Arminianism,  or   rather,  perhaps  I  ought  to 
say    Pelagianism    upon    our    churches."       Dr. 
Humphrey  has  here  expressed  the  '  opinion'  and 
solemn  belief  of  very  many  of  the  most  discrimi- 
nating and  judicious  ministers  of  New  England. 
And  what  do  professed  Arminians  think  of  these 
speculations  ?     The    Rev.  Dr.  Fiske,  President 
of  the  Wesleyan  University,  in  his  reply  to  Pro- 
fessor Fitch's  Review  of  his  sermon  on  Predesti- 
nation, says,  "Ifl  understand  the  reviewer,  he  is 
in  principle  an  Arminian.    The  reviewer's  whole 
ground  of  defence  is  solely  this  Arminian  expla- 
nation of  the  doctrine  of  predestination.     He 
acknowledges,  nay,  boldly  asserts,  in  a  strain  of 
rugged  controversy  with   his  brethren  who  may 
differ  from  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  there  is 
no  other  explanation  by  which  the  arguments  of 
the  sermon  can   be  avoided;  that  is,  as  1  under- 
stand it,  the  only  way   to   avoid   the  arguments 
against  the  doctrine  of  Calvinian  predestination, 
is  to  give  it  up  and  assume  the  Arminian  senti- 
ment.    I  cannot   approve  of  the    aeviewer's  use 
of  terms,  though   to   my  understanding  he  has 
evidently  given  the  doctrine  of  predestination  not 
merely  a  new  dress,  but  a  new  character,  yet  he 
more  than  intimates   that  it  is  the  old  doctrine, 
with   only  a  new  method  of  explanation.     And 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  Ill 

SO  confident  is  the  reviewer,  that  he  still  believes 
in  the  fact  of  predestination  in  the  old  Calvinis- 
tic  sense,  that  in   stating  his  sentiments  on  this 
subject,   he  uses  the  same  forms  of  expression 
which  Calvin ists  have  used  when  their  meaning 
was  as  distant  from    his  as  the  two  poles   from 
each    other.     I  feel  safer  in  understanding  the 
reviewer  in  an  Arminian  sense,  because  he  and 
some  others  take  it  very   ill  of  me  that  I  have 
represented  them  as  Calvinists.     By  God's  fore- 
ordaining whatever  comes  to  pass,  he  only  means 
that  God  foresaw  that  sin   would  certainly  take 
place,  and  predetermined  that  he  would  not  hin- 
der it,  either  by  refraining  from  creating  moral 
agents,  or   by  throwing  a  restraint  upon  them 
that  would  destroy  their  free  agency ;  in  short, 
that  he  would  submit  to  it  as  an  evil  unavoidably 
incident  to   the  best  possible  system,  after  doing 
all  that  he  wisely  could   do  to  prevent  it.     This 
is   foreordaining   sin !     that   is,    predetermining 
that   it   should   be  !     I   cannot   but  express   my 
deepest  regret  that  a  gentleman  of  the    review- 
er's standing  and  learning   should  lend  his  aid, 
and  give  his  sanction  to  such  a  perversion  of  lan- 
guage, to  such  a  confusion  of  tongues.     Do  the 
words  predestinate,  foreordain,  decree,  mean  in 
common    language,  or  in  their  radical  and  criti- 
cal definition,  nothing  more  than  to   permit,  not 
absolutely  to  hinder — to  submit  to  as  an  unavoid- 
able but  offensive  evil  ?    The  reviewer  certainly 
will  not  pretend  to  this.     The  use  of  these  terms 
by  those   who  believe  as  I  understand  the  review- 
er to  believe,   is  the  more  unjustifiable,  because 
they  are  used  by  most  Calvinistic   authors  in  a 
different  sense.     Why  then  should  the  reviewer, 


113  ORIGIN    AND    PiROGRESS 

believing  as  he  does,  continue  to  use  them  in  the 
symbols  of  his  faith  ?  Different  persons  might 
give  different  answers  to  such  a  question.  For 
one,  I  would  prefer  he  should  answer  it  himself. 
His  mode  of  explanation  turns  the  doctrine  into 
Arminianism.  But  the  sermon  was  never  writ- 
ten to  oppose  those  who  hold  the  decrees  of  God 
in  an  Arminian  sense.  Why  then,  does  the 
reviewer  complain  of  the  sermon?  It  seems 
that  Calvinism,  in  its  proper  character  is  as  ob- 
noxious to  the  reviewer  as  to  the  author  of  the 
sermon.  If  it  is  safer  to  attack  Calvinism  in 
this  indirect  way,  I  will  not  object.  But  I  cannot 
see  that  it  would  be  safer.  An  open,  bold  front, 
always  ends  best.  As  I  understand  the  reviewer, 
from  the  days  of  John  Calvin  down  to  the  pres- 
ent hour,  there  is,  on  this  point,  between  the 
great  body  of  Calvinists  and  himself,  almost  no 
likeness  except  in  the  use  of  words.  Theirs  is 
one  doctrine,  his  another.  Why  then,  does  he 
hail  from  that  party,  and  hoist  their  signals,  and 
then,  after  seeming  to  get  the  victory  by  espous- 
ing the  very  cause  of  the  assailed,  encourage  the 
Calvinists  to  triumph,  as  if  their  cause  had  been 
successful  ?" 

Dr.  Griffin,  after  quoting  the  foregoing  passa- 
ges in  his  treatise  on  divine  efficiency,  makes  the 
following  observation  :  "  These  remarks  of  the 
President  of  the  Wesley  an  University  of  Con- 
necticut, appear  to  me  to  be  candid  and  judi- 
cious, and  go  far  towards  exposing  the  unhappy 
incongruity  between  the  language  and  sentiments 
of  this  Review." 

And  what  opinion  do  the  Unitarians  entertain 
of  the   New  Haven   speculations  ?     If  I  had  at 


or    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  113 

command  a  file  of  the  Christian  Register,  (a 
Unitarian  paper  printed  in  Boston,)  for  the  last 
six  or  seven  years,  I  could  turn  to  numerous  pas- 
sages in  which  they  have  exulted  in  the  progress 
of  liberal  sentiments  at  New  Haven.  They  have 
often  quoted  with  high  commendation  the  wri- 
tings of  Dr.  Taylor,  and  have  affirmed  again  and 
again,  that  the  New  Haven  divines  have  given  up 
the  most  objectionable  parts  of  the  Calvinistic 
system.  The  following  passages  are  from  the 
"  Last  Thoughts"  of  Noah  Worcester,  a  Unita- 
rian clergyman  in  Massachusetts.  The  book 
was  published  in  1833. 

"  In  former  days,  the  Calvinistic  creed  of  hu- 
man depravity  affirmed  the  corruption  of  man's 
lohole  nature,  as  the  consequence  of  Adam's  sin." 

This  theory  was  modified  in  some  important 
respects  by  the  Hopkinsians  of  New  England, 
by  whose  theory  the  corruption  was  limited  to 
the  heart  or  will  of  man,  leaving  the  mental  fac- 
idties  unimpaired.  Still,  it  was  admitted  that 
the  posterity  of  Adam  are  born  with  a  nature  or 
disposition  wholly  sinful.  A  still  further  modifi- 
cation has  been  advanced  and  ably  supported  by 
Dr.  Taylor  of  New  Haven  and  his  associates. 
To  state  the  hypothesis  in  authorized  language, 
I  shall  take  my  extracts  from  a  ''  Review  of  Tay- 
lor and  Harvey,"  which  appeared  in  the  Chris- 
tian Spectator,  for  June,  1829.  After  quoting 
two  paragraphs,  he  proceeds,  "In  the  first  para- 
graph I  see  nothing  objectionable  ;  and  I  rejoice 
that  such  views  of  human  nature  have  been  pro- 
posed and  are  acquiring  belief.  If  I  have  not 
misunderstood  these  writers,  the  New  Haven  the- 
ory asserts  that  sin  is  a  voluntary  transgression  ot 
in* 


114  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

a  known  law,  and  that  as  infants  are  incapable 
of  moral  agency,  they  are  incapable  of  sin  ;  and 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  sinful  nature,  ante- 
cedent to  sinful  volition,  or  moral  action.  They 
strongly  assert  that  nature  is  not  sinful.  Thus 
far  I  acquiesce."  "  Within  a  few  years  Dr.  Tay- 
lor, of  New  Haven,  with  his  associates,  including 
the  Christian  Spectator,  have  done  much  to  di- 
minish the  reputation  of  what  has  been  regarded 
as  the  Orthodox  and  Calvinistic  views  on  this  sub- 
ject."  (original  sin.) 

In  regard  to  the  divine  permission  of  sin,  the 
writer  adopts  the  views  of  the  New  Haven 
divines,  and  speaks  in  terms  of  high  commenda- 
tion of  their  reasoning  on  this  subject.  He 
says,  "  The  New  Haven  writers  have  contended 
for  the  hypothesis  that  sin  is  an  evil  incident  to 
the  best  plan  of  government." 

Now  here  is  a  problem  to  be  solved.  If  the 
New  Haven  divines  are  consistent  Calvinists,  and 
if  they  do  agree  substantially  with  the  standard 
orthodox  writers  of  New  England,  how  has  it 
come  to  pass  that  they  have  been  so  egregriously 
misunderstood?  And  not  by  a  few  individuals 
merely,  but  by  vast  multitudes;  not  only  by  per- 
sons of  one  particular  class,  embracing  similar 
sentiments,  but  by  persons  of  different  classes, 
and  embracing  widely  different  sentiments  ? 

Besides,  if  there  is  no  difference,  or  no  mate- 
rial difference  between  them  and  the  orthodox 
generally,  what  are  we  to  understand  by  the  great 
improvements  which  they  are  said  to  have  made 
in  theological  science  ?  That  they  have  made 
such  improvements  is  not  only  a  matter  of  con- 
stant exultation  by  their   friends   and  adherents, 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGV.  115 

but  is  more  than  intimated  by  themselves.  In  the 
Christian  Spectator  for  September,  1833,  they 
say,  "  But  greatly  as  our  views  on  this  subject, 
(the  influences  of  the  Spirit,)  and  some  others, 
have  been  misrepresented,  we  are  happy  to  find 
that  they  are  beginning  to  be  extensively  under- 
stood and  appreciated.  We  know  of  very  few, 
who  are  now  inclined  to  ask,  '  can  there  be  no 
other  sin  than  that  which  consists  in  voluntary 
transgression  of  known  law?' — and  the  number 
is  far  less  than  formerly  of  those  who  hold  that 
regeneration  is  so  exclusively  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  that  the  subject  of  it  has,  and  can  have 
no  voluntary  agency  in  it.  There  has  of  late 
been  a  great  improvement  in  the  doctrinal  views 
of  vast  numbers,  in  relation  to  these  and  a  few 
other  points  which  we  esteem  of  high  impor- 
tance. And  if  the  humble  labors  of  the  Christ- 
ian Spectator  have,  in  any  degree,  contributed  to 
this  desirable  result,  '  we  therein  rejoice,  yea  and 
will  rejoice.'  " 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  they  here  speak 
of  the  points  respecting  which  they  and  their 
brethren  differ,  and  in  regard  to  which  they  sup- 
pose "  a  great  improvement"  has  been  made,  not 
as  matters  of  little  consequence,  out  as  points  of 
"  high  importance." 

There  has  been  a  very  great  inconsistency  in 
the  advocates  of  the  new  divinity  in  relation  to 
this  matter.  Sometimes  they  give  us  startling 
and  even  shocking  representations  of  the  ten- 
dency of  the  views  commonly  entertained  by  the 
orthodox.  They  speak  of  them  as  tending  to 
''the  very  worst  of  heresies,"  and  involving  the 
most  horrid  blasphemies.     At   other  times,  they 


116  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

insist  that  they  and  their  opponents  are  substan- 
tially agreed — that  all  the  difference  relates  to 
minor  parts,  and  philosophical  theories,  which  do 
not  affect  the  fundamentals  of  Christianity. 
Much  indeed  has  been  said  about  the  philosophy 
of  religion,  and  great  stress  has  been  laid  on  the 
distinction  between  the  doctrines  of  religion  and 
the  philosophy  of  the  doctrines.  It  is  said  that 
persons  may  agree  in  their  belief  of  the  doc- 
trines or  great  facts  of  Christianity,  and  still  dif- 
fer in  their  philosophy.  Where  this  is  the  case, 
it  is  contended  that  the  difference  canno.t  be  fun- 
damental or  of  great  importance. 

If  I  understand  those  who  make  this  distinc- 
tion, they  mean  by  the  philosophy  of  the  doc- 
trines, the  mode  of  explaining  the  doctrines. 
The  principle  then  contended  for  is  this.  Those 
who  agree  in  admitting  the  doctrines  or  facts  of 
the  Bible  are  substantially  agreed,  although  they 
may  differ  widely  in  their  mode  of  explaining 
those  facts. 

Let  us  test  this  principle.  The  apostle  says, 
"This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all 
acceptation,  that  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the 
world  to  save  sinners."  And  this  fact  is  admit- 
ted to  be  true  by  persons  who  entertain  widely 
different  opinions  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  One 
maintains  that  Christ  came  to  save  men  by  teach- 
ing them  the  will  of  God,  and  setting  an  exam- 
ple for  them  to  imitate.  Another,  that  he  came 
to  suffer  and  die  an  atoning  sacrifice,  and  in  this 
way  to  honor  the  law,  and  render  it  consistent 
for  God  to  pardon  those  who  repent  and  believe. 
Another,  that  he  came  to  secure,  and   actually 


OF    NEW    HAVEX    THEOLOGY.  117 

will   secure  the  salvation   of  all  men.     Are  all 
these  individuals  substantially  agreed? 

Again.  Our  Saviour  said,  "  Except  a  man  be 
born  again  he  cannnot  see  the  kingdom  of  God." 
But  one  man  who  admits  the  doctrine  of  the  new 
birth  to  be  true,  explains  it  to  mean  water  bap- 
tism. Another,  conversion  from  the  Jewish  or 
Gentile  religion  to  the  belief  and  profession  of 
Christianity.  Another,  a  gradual  change  of  char- 
acter. Another,  a  mere  change  of  purpose. 
And  another,  a  radical  change  of  heart  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Are  all  these  individ- 
uals substantially  agreed  ? 

Again.  The  scriptures  teach  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith.  But  one  man  understands 
by  faith  a  mere  speculative  belief  of  the  truth. 
Another,  that  Christ  died  for  him  in  particular. 
Another,  a  cordial  reception  of  the  truth  as  k  is 
in  Jesus.  Are  all  these  individuals  substantially 
agreed  1 

This  illustration  might  be  pursued  to  any  ex- 
tent. But  enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  fal- 
lacy of  the  principle  in  question,  and  to  show, 
moreover  that  if  admitted  to  be  true,  it  will 
sweep  away  all.distinction  between  true  and  false 
religion.  According  to  this  distinction,  all  the 
difference  betweenCalvinists,  Pelagians,  Armini- 
ans,  and  Unitarians,  and  even  Universalists,  res- 
pects only  the  philosophy  of  religion.  They  all 
admit  the  la^ts  stated  in  the  Bible,  but  they  differ 
in  their  explanation  of  these  facts.  And  is  the 
principle  to  be  maintained,  that  if  different  indi- 
viduals express  their  belief  in  the  same  terms,  it 
is  no  matter  how  much  they  may  differ  in  their 
explanation  of  those  terms?     Does  a  man's  faith 


118  NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY. 

depend  on  the  language  in  which  it  is  expressed, 
or  in  the  sense  in  which  he  uses  that  language  1 

Dr.  Porter,  in  a  letter  written  August  6,  1832, 
says,  "  On  the  late  hobby  distinction  between 
doctrines  and  the  theory  or  philosophy  of  relig- 
ion, I  could  write  a  sheet  or  two.  I  said  to 
brother  Beecher,  give  me  that  door,  and  I  will 
bring  all  the  churches  of  Boston  to  meet  on  one 
floor,  as  orthodox.  Try  the  principle  on  the  trin- 
ity, and  all  that  is  essential  to  the  truth  is  easily 
set  aside  under  the  head  of  philosophy,  or  theory. 
Worse  yet  as  to  the  atonement,  regeneration, 
&/C.  Noah  Worcester,  in  the  Christian  Regis- 
ter, three  or  four  weeks  ago,  followed  up  the 
principle  capitally  in  behalf  of  the  Unitarians." 

Much  reproach  has  been  cast  upon  the  ortho- 
dox for  disparaging  philosophy  in  matters  of 
religion.  But  it  is  not  true  that  they  disparage 
it  when  kept  within  its  proper  limits,  and  directed 
to  its  proper  ends.  That  to  which  they  object  is 
setting  up  reason  above  revelation,  forming  philo- 
sophical theories,  independently  of  revelation, 
respecting  the  powers  and  susceptibilities  of 
man,  the  principles  of  moral  agency  and  moral 
government,  and  then  explaining  the  Bible  so  as 
to  make  it  conform  to  their  theories.  This  is,  and 
ever  has  been,  the  fruitful  source  of  error  in  re- 
ligion. True  philosophy  bows  with  humble  rev- 
erence to  the  decisions  of  revelation.  She  is 
modest  in  her  pretensions,  and  like  Mary,  sits  at 
the  Saviour's  feet,  that  she  may  learn  of  him  who 
is  meek  and  lowly  in  heart. 

Yours  affectionately. 


LETTER   XIII 


March  21,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

Dr.  Porter,  in  one  of  his  letters  written  in 
1830,  says,  "  I  am  completely  non-plussed  to  see 
what  Dr.  Taylor  would  be  at.  He  began  writing 
avowedly  to  correct  what  he  thought  common 
errors  of  our  theologians ;  and  next  he  supports 
his  own  views  by  quoting  these  theologians  as 
concurring  in  sentiment  with  himself."  This 
inconsistency  of  the  New  Haven  divines  has 
often  been  noticed,  and  remarked  upon  with 
astonishment.  Notwithstanding  the  claims  set 
up  by  themselves,  and  their  adherents  to  the 
merits  of  having  made  "  great  improvements" 
in  the  science  of  theology;  yet  when  they  are 
charged  with  having  departed  from  the  establish- 
ed orthodoxy  of  New  England,  they  repel  this 
charge  by  insisting  that  they  do  not  differ  from 
Edwards,  Bellamy,  Dwight,  Strong,  &lc.  and 
that,  too,  on  the  very  points  respecting  which 
they  profess  to  have  made  such  "  great  improve- 
ment." 

Without  dwelling  on  this  inconsistency,  I  pro- 


120  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

pose  to  show,  by  a  few  brief  quotations,  how  ut- 
terly groundless  is  this  claim. 

The  first  topic  to  which  I  would  direct  your 
attention  is  the  government  of  God. 

On  this  point,  the  New  Haven  divines  have 
maintained  the  following  positions,  viz  :  "  That 
God  has  not  a  complete  control  over  the  moral 
universe.  That  moral  agents  can  do  wrong  un- 
der every  possible  influence  to  prevent  it.  That 
God  prefers,  all  things  considered,  that  all  his 
creatures  should  be  holy  and  happy,  and  that  he 
does  all  in  his  power  to  render  them  so.  That 
the  existence  of  sin  is  notj  on  the  whole,  for  the 
best.  That  sin  exists,  because  God  cannot  pre- 
vent it  in  a  moral  system.  And  that  the  bless- 
edness of  God  is  actually  impaired  by  the  diso- 
bedience of  his  creatures." 

These  positions  are  clearly  maintained  in  the 
following  passages,  and  many  others  that  might 
be  cited. 

"  God  not  only  prefers,  on  the  whole,  that  his 
creatures  should  forever  perform  their  duties, 
rather  than  neglect  them,  but  proposes  on  his 
part  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  promote  this  very 
object  in  his  kingdom. — Christian  Spectator, 
1832,  p.  660. 

"  It  will  not  be  denied,  that  free  moral  agents 
can  do  wrong  under  every  possible  influence  to 
prevent  it.  The  possibility  of  a  contradiction, 
in  supposing  them  to  be  prevented  from  doing 
wrong  is,  therefore,  demonstrably  certain.  Free 
moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under  all  possible 
preventing  influence." — Ch.  Spec.   1830,  p.  563. 

"■  But  this  possibility  that  moral  agents  will 
sin,  remains  (suppose  what  else  you  will)  so  long 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  121 

as  moral  agency  remains ;  and  how  can  it  be 
proved  that  a  thing  will  not  be,  when  for  aught 
that  appears  it  may  be?  When,  in  view  of  all 
the  facts  and  evidence  in  the  case,  it  remains 
true  that  it  may  be,  what  evidence  or  proof  can 
exist  that  it  will  not  be? — Ch.  Spec.  1830,  p. 
553. 

"  We  know  that  a  moral  system  necessarily 
implies  the  existence  of  free  agents,  with  the 
power  to  act  in  despite  of  all  opposing  power. 
This  fact  sets  human  reason  at  defiance,  in  every 
attempt  to  prove  that  some  of  these  agents  will 
not  use  that  power  and  actually  sin." — Ch.  Spec. 
1831,  p.  617. 

"  it  is  groundless  assumption  thr.t  God  could 
have  prevented  all  sin,  or  at  least,  the  present 
degree  of  sin  in  a  moral  system.  If  holiness  in 
a  moral  system  be  preferable  to  sin  in  its  stead, 
why  did  not  a  benevolent  God,  were  it  possible 
to  him,  prevent  all  sin,  and  secure  the  prevalence 
of  universal  holiness?  Would  not  a  moral  uni- 
verse of  perfect  holiness,  and  of  course  perfect 
happiness,  be  happier  and  better  than  one  com- 
prising sin  and  its  miseries  ?  And  must  not  in- 
finite benevolence  accomplish  all  the  good  it  can  ? 
Would  not  a  benevolent  God,  then,  had  it  been 
possible  to  him  in  the  nature  of  things,  have  se- 
cured the  existence  of  universal  holiness  in  his 
moral  kingdom." — Dr.  Taylor  s  Coricio,  p.  28. 

Now  I  am  bold  to  affirm  that  these  positions 
have  never  been  maintained  by  any  of  the  ortho- 
dox writers  of  New  England,  nor  by  any  divines 
claiming  to  be  Calvinistic,  since  the  llefomation. 
The  universal  sentiment  of  New   England  Cal- 

11 


122  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

vinists,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  may  be  learn- 
ed from  the  following  extracts  : 

President  Edwards.  "  Objectors  may  say, 
God  cannot  always  prevent  men's  sins,  unless  he 
act  contrary  to  the  free  nature  of  the  subject,  or 
without  destroying  men's  liberty.  But  will  they 
deny  that  an  omnipotent  and  infinitely  wise  God 
could  possibly  invent  and  set  before  men  such 
strong  motives  to  be  obedient,  and  have  kept  be- 
fore them  in  such  a  manner,  as  should  have  in- 
fluenced all  mankind  to  continue  in  their  obedi- 
ence, as  the  elect  engels  have  done,  without  de- 
stroying their  liberty  ?" — Decrees  and  Election, 
Sec.  19. 

*'  Sin  may  be  an  evil  thing,  and  yet  that  there 
should  be  such  a  disposal  and  permission  that  it 
should  come  to  pass  may  be  a  good  thing. —  Trea- 
tise on  the  Will,  p.  339. 

"  God  does  not  will  sin  as  sin,  or  for  the  sake 
of  any  evil;  though  it  be  his  pleasure  so  to  order 
things,  that  He  permitting,  sin  will  come  to  pass  ; 
for  the  sake  of  the  great  good  that  by  his  disposal 
shall  be  the  consequence." — Id.  p.  314. 

Dr.  Bellamy.  "  Others,  to  solve  the  difficul- 
ties, have  asserted  that  it  was  not  in  the  power 
of  God  to  prevent  the  fall  of  free  agents,  with- 
out destroying  their  free  agency,  and  turning 
them  into  intelligent  machines,  incapable  of  vir- 
tue as  well  as  of  vice.  But  it  is  enough  for  us, 
to  confute  this  hypothesis,  that  it  is  contrary  to 
plain  scripture  representations,  which  teach  us 
that  the  man,  Christ  Jesus,  our  second  Adam, 
was  a  free  agent,  capable  of  the  highest  virtue, 
and  yet  in  a  confirmed  state,  so  that  he  could 
not  sin  ;  as  are   also  the  saints  and   angels  now 


or    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  123 

in  heaven.  From  whence,  it  appears  that  it  was 
in  God's  power  to  have  confirmed  all  intelligen- 
ces at  first ;  and  left  them  moral  agents  notwith- 
standing."—  lVurL:<,   Vol.  I.  p.  50. 

"  We  agree,  that  if  God  had  pleased,  he  conld 
have  hindered  tlie  existence  of  sin,  and  caused 
misery  to  be  forever  unknown  in  his  dominions, 
with  as  much  ease  as  to  have  suffered  things  to 
take  their  present  course." — Id.  p.  126. 

In  the  following  passages,  he  quotes  from  his 
antagonist,  and  answers  the  very  objection  which 
the  New  Haven  divines  have  so  often  urged  on 
this  subject.  The  objector  says  :  "  For  if  once 
I  should  believe  that  it  was  wisest  and  best  in 
God  to  permit  sin,  most  for  his  glory  and  the 
good  of  his  system,  I  should  feel  myself  under  a 
necessity  to  look  upon  sin  as  being,  in  its  own 
nature,  a  good  thing,  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the 
good  of  the  system  ;  and  that  God  delights  in  it 
as  such.  And  that,  therefore,  instead  of  hating 
sin,  mourning  for  it  in  ourselves,  lamenting  it  in 
others,  we  ought  rather  to  esteem  it  as  really  a 
good  and  virtuous  thing,  and  as  such,  to  rejoice 
in  it,  and  even  to  keep  an  everlasting  jubilee  in 
remembrance  of  satan's  revolt,  and  Adam's  fall ; 
events  so  infinitely  glorious!  Absurdities  so 
shocking  that  I  never  can  believe  them."  To 
this.  Dr.  Bellamy  replies  :  "  And  absurdities,  let 
me  tell  you,  if  you  did  but  understand  the  scheme 
you  are  opposing,  you  would  know  are,  so  far 
from  following  from  it,  that  they  are  absolutely^ 
inconsistent  with  it.  For  the  doctrine  of  the 
wisdom  of  God,  in  the  permission  of  sin,  sup- 
poses sin  in  itself,  and  in  all  its  natural  tenden- 
cies, to  be  infinitely  evil,  infinitely  contrary  to  the 


V24:  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

honor  of  God  and  good  of  the  system.  For 
herein  consists  tlie  v.isdom  of  God  in  the  affair, 
not  in  bringing  good  out  of  good,  but  in  bring- 
ing infinite  good  out  of  inhnife  evil,  and  never 
suffering  one  sin  to  happen  in  all  his  dominions, 
but  which,  notwithstanding  its  infinitely  evil  na- 
ture and  tendency,  infinite  wisdom  can  and  will 
overrule  to  great  ijood,  on  the  whole." — Id.  p. 
145. 

"  Now,  since  it  is  a  plain  fact,  that  sin  and 
misery  do  take  place  in  the  system,  methinks 
that  every  one  who  is  a  friend  to  God  and  the 
system,  should  rejoice  with  all  his  heart  to  hear, 
that  the  seed  of  the  woman  will  bruise  the  ser- 
pent's head,  bring  glory  to  God,  and  good  to  the 
system,  out  of  all  the  evil  that  ever  has  taken 
place,  or  ever  will ;  (and  the  more  good  the  bet- 
ter ;)  and  so  completely  disappoint  the  devil." — 
Mp.  171. 

Dr.  Hopkins.  "  Moral  evil  is,  in  its  own  na- 
ture and  tendency,  most  odious,  hurtful,  and 
undesirable;  but  in  the  hands  of  Omnipotence, 
infinite  wisdom,  and  goodness,  it  may  be  intro- 
duced into  the  most  perfect  plan  and  system,  and 
so  disposed  and  counteracted  in  its  nature  and 
tendency,  as  to  be  a  necessary  part  of  it,  in  order 
to  render  it  most  complete  and  desirable." — S?/s- 
tem.    Vol.  1.  p.  114. 

Dr.  DwiGHT.  "  That  God  could  not  prevent 
the  existence  of  sin,  cannot  be  maintained.  He 
has  prevented  it  in  the  angels  who  kept  their  first 
estate.  He  prevented  it  in  the  person  of  Christ, 
who,  in  his  human  nature  knew  no  sin.  He  has 
promised  that  he  will  prevent  it,  and  he  will 
therefore  prevent   it  in   the  spirits  of  just  men 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  125 

made  perfect  in  the  heavens.  Should  it  be  said, 
that  these  beings,  by  their  own  voluntary  agency, 
and  without  any  interference  or  influence  on  the 
part  of  God,  continue  in  a  state  of  holiness ;  this 
supposition  affects  not  the  point  at  all ;  for  God 
plainly  could  have  created  every  moral  agent  with 
exactly  the  same  attributes,  and  placed  him  in 
exactly  the  same  circumstances,  with  those  sev- 
eral beings  who  persist  in  holiness.  Whatever 
we  suppose  to  be  the  means  by  which  they  are 
preserved  from  sin,  those  very  means  he  certainly 
could  have  used,  to  prevent,  in  the  same  effectu- 
al manner,  all  others." — Si/stcm  of  Theology  Vol. 
I.  pp.  244,  245. 

"  Ft  will  not  be  denied,  that  God  is  both  able 
and  disposed  to  plan  a  perfect  system  of  good. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  he  certainly  has  planned 
such  a  system.  What  accords  not  with  his  pleas- 
ure, upon  the  whole,  accords  not  with  this  sys- 
tem; this  being  the  thing  which  is  agreeable  to 
his  pleasure  ;  but  must  be  defective  or  surperflu- 
ous,  out  of  place  or  out  of  time,  aside  from,  or 
contrary  to  the  perfection  of  the  system.  Con- 
sequently, if  the  actions  of  voluntary  beings  be 
not,  upon  the  whole,  accordant  with  the  pleasure 
of  God,  he  was  not  only  unassured  of  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  end,  which  he  proposed  in  cre- 
ating and  governing  the  universe  ;  but  he  enter- 
ed upon  this  great  work  without  knowing  that  it 
would  be  accomplished;  and  was  originally  cer- 
tain that  the  perfect  good  which  he  proposed, 
would  never  exist. — Id.  p.  2o0. 

Dr.  Strong.  "  Human  incapacity  to  bring 
the  greatest  good  out  of  much  evil — much  sin, 
and  much  misery,  is  no  argument  that  an  infinite 
11* 


12G  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

God  cannot  do  it." — Benevolence  and  Misery,  p, 
15. 

"  We  ought  to  have  such  confidence  in  the 
wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  when  he  tells  us 
that  creatures  shall  be  always  miserable  under 
punishment,  as  to  believe,  that  the  eternal  hap- 
piness of  every  creature,  and  the  greatest  happi- 
ness of  the  whole,  are  incompatible,  and  cannot 
come  together  into  that  plan  or  scheme  of  exis- 
tence and  government,  which  are  the  best  possi- 
ble.—/d  p.  120. 

CuRisTiAN  Spectator.  "  Now  it  is  possible 
that  many  things,  which  in  themselves  are  right,^ 
would  not  be  for  the  best,  on  the  whole ;  and  on 
the  other  hand,  that  many  things  are,  on  the 
whole,  for  the  best,  which  in  themselves  are 
wrong.  I  say  this  is  possible — nay,  it  is  certain. 
The  wars  and  bloodshed,  the  despotism  and  bon- 
dage, the  subtlety  and  dishonesty,  the  folly  and 
sin  which  overspread  the  earth,  though  in  them- 
selves wroi^g,  are,  on  the  whole,  for  the  best."rr^ 
Vol  1.  p.  447. 

Such  were  the  views  inculcated  by  the  Chris- 
tian Spectator  in  1819.  How  different  from  the 
views  inculcated  in  the  same  work  in  1832. 

Mr.  Day.  (Father  of  President  Day  of  Yale 
College,  a  distinguished  New  England  divine.) 
I  have  before  me  a  sermon  of  his  preached  at 
Bethlehem  in  1774,  before  the  Association  of 
Ministers  of  Litchfield  county,  and  published  at 
their  request.  The  object  of  this  sermon  was  to 
refute  the  very  hypothesis  which  has,  of  late, 
been  revived  and  strenuously  maintained  by  the 
New  Haven  divines.  The  title  of  the  sermon  is 
*'  The  ability  of  God  to  restrain  sin,  in  a  way  con- 


OF    NEW    HAVEX    THEOLOGY.  127 

sistent  with  the  liberty  of  the  creature."  The 
following  extracts  will  show  not  only  what  were 
his  views,  but  what  were  the  viev.s  of  the  Asso- 
ciation, and  of  Calvinistic  ministers  generally, 
in  New  England  at  that  period. 

"  Is  not  the  parent  of  the  universe  kind  and 
benevolent  ?  Can  he  overrule  all  things  for  the 
best,  and  will  he  not?  Can  he  restrain  the  wrath 
of  man,  and  will  he  not  therefore  do  it,  whenever 
it  would  praise  him  ?  Reason  and  scripture  join 
to  demonstrate  that  he  will.  If  God  does,  there- 
fore, in  every  instance,  restrain  sin,  so  far  as  it 
would  be  for  the  best,  it  is  certain  that  whatever 
moral  evil  is  in  the  universe,  it  shall  somehow  or 
£>ther  subserve  the  noblest  and  best  purposes." — 
Preface,  p.  4. 

"  What  I  propose  in  the  ensuing  discourse  is, 
to  establish  God's  absolute  clominion  over  the 
hearts  of  men  ;  to  evince  his  entire  ability  to 
govern  and  control  the  human  heart,  so,  that  to 
whatever  enormous  height,  the  turbulent  passions 
and  violent  corruptions  may  arise,  yet  they  are 
perfectly  limited  and  curbed  at  the  divine  pleas- 
ure ;  so  that  it  may  without  propriety  be  said 
with  respect  thereto,  as  is  said  concerning  the 
boisterous  ocean — "  Hitherto  shall  thou  come, 
but  no  farther,  and  here  shall  thy  proud  waves 
be  stayed."  It  would  be  a  lamentable  censider- 
ation,  indeed,  if  the  horrid  outrage  and  madness 
of  men  was  irresistible  by  Omnipotence  itself; 
and  if  the  all-wise  Governor  and  Superintendent 
of  the  universe,  could  not  restrain  and  suppress 
the  perverse  rage  of  men,  agreeably  to  his  holy 
will. — p.  5. 

"  If  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  God  to  keep  a 


128 


ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 


free  agent  from  sinning,  with  what  propriety  can 
he  be  directed  to  pray  to  God  for  restraining 
grace,  or  that  he  may  be  preserved  from  sin?" — 
p.  14. 

*'  If  we  suppose  the  consequence  of  God's 
creating  and  upholding  free  agents,  would  be, 
that  they  might  act  entirely  inconsistently  with 
the  divine  purpose  ;  that  in  the  use  of  their  free- 
dom,  God  could  not  keep  them  in  those  bounds, 
which  should  eventually  turn  most  for  his  glory, 
and  the  greatest  good  of  intelligent  beings ;  but 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  purpose  of  God,  they 
should  act  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  entirely  over- 
throw and  subvert  all  the  good  which  God  pro- 
posed in  the  creation  of  intelligent  beings,  how 
shocking  must  the  thought  be  !  Upon  this  sup- 
position, all  the  noble  and  excellent  ends  which 
God  proposed  in  the  creation  of  the  universe, 
might  be  frustrated  ;  for  it  not  being  in  the  pow- 
er of  God  to  restrain  sin,  and  govern  free  agents 
according  to  his  will,  they  might  in  every  respect 
cross  the  will  of  God,  and  defeat  every  valuable 
end  the  divine  Being  proposed  in  their  forma- 
tion." "  It  is  very  easy  to  perceive,  that  if  it  is 
not  in  the  power  of  God  to  control  the  hearts  of 
free  agents,  and  restram  them  from  sin,  accord- 
ing to  his  pleasure,  dreadful  consequences  may 
ensue.  The  will  of  God  may  be  crossed — the 
good  he  aimed  at  in  the  creation  be  prevented — 
irreparable  disorders  introduced.  The  friends 
of  virtue  would  be  filled  with  lamentation.  The 
enemies  of  God  and  all  good,  would  triumph 
and  exult.  Is  it  not  easy  to  see  that  this  might 
have  been  the  terrible  consequence,  if  it  was  not 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  129 

absolutely  in  the  power  of  God  to  govern  free 
agents?"— pp.  24,  25. 

"  We  infer,  that  as  God  is  able  to  restrain  sin 
among  the  apostate,  rebellious,  children  of  men, 
Avho  are  under  the  dominion  of  powerful  vicious 
habits ;  so  we  can  much  more  easily  conceive, 
that  he  was  able  to  have  prevented  sin  in  beings 
made  originally  holy." — p.  27. 

The  theory  of  the  New  Kaven  divines,  in  re- 
lation to  this  subject,  is  the  very  theory  which 
has  uniformly  been  maintained  by  Arminians  in 
their  controversies  with  Calvinists.  The  grand 
objection  of  Arminians  to  the  Cahinistic  doctrine 
of  the  Divine  Decrees,  has  been,  that  it  involves 
the  position  that  God  purposed  or  decreed  the 
existence  of  sin ;  and  when  they  have  been  ask- 
ed, why  God  did  not  prevent  the  existence  of  sin, 
unless  it  was,  on  the  whole,  his  purpose  that  it 
should  exist?  their  reply  has  been  invariably,  in 
substance,  as  follows;  God  could  not  have  pie- 
vented  sin  without  destroying  the  moral  agency 
of  his  creatures;  in  other  v/ords,  he  could  not 
have  prevented  all  sin  in  a  moral  system.  Thus 
Mr.  Fletcher,  the  distinguished  advocate  of  the 
Wesleyan  system,  represents  the  Divine  Being  as 
saying,  "  I  foresaw,  indeed,  that  by  such  a  final 
contempt  of  my  grace,  many  would  bring  de- 
struction upon  themselves ;  but  having  wisely 
decreed  to  make  a  world  of  probationers  and 
free  agents,  I  could  not  necessarily  incline  their 
will  to  obedience  without  robbing  them  of  free 
agency,  without  foolishly  defeating  the  counsel 
of  my  own  v.-ill,  and  absurdly  spoiling  the  work 
of  my  own  hands."  Thus  also,  the  author  of 
the  "  Errors  of  Ilopkinsianism,"  (an  avowed  Ar- 


130  ORIGIN    AND    I'ROGRESS 

minian,)  says,  "  No  doubt  but  God  sought  the 
greatest  good  of  the  universe,  consistently  with 
liis  own  nature,  and  the  nuture  of  man  ;  and  con- 
sistently with  these  natures,  the  greatest  good  is 
obtained,  because  man  refuses  to  have  more.  A 
part  of  the  human  race  choose  death  in  the  error 
of  their  ways;  and  to  have  made  man  a  neces- 
sary agent,  would  have  been  to  make  him  any 
thing  besides  an  intelligent  creature. 

The  principle  assumed  by  both  of  these  wri- 
ters, (and  the  same  is  true  of  Arminians  gener- 
ally,) is,  that  God  could  not  have  prevented  the 
existence  of  sin,  without  robbing  man  of  free 
agency,  and  making  him  a  necessary  agent. 
The  same  ground  is  taken  by  the  New  Haven 
divines. 

Should  it  be  said,  that  those  who  maintain 
that  God  foreordained  the  existence  of  a  moral 
system  with  the  foreknowledge  that  sin  would  be 
necessarily  incidental  to  it,  do  virtually  maintain 
that  he  decreed  the  existence  of  sin — I  reply  : 
This  view  of  the  divine  decrees,  Arminians  have 
always  been  ready  to  admit ;  but  they  have  not 
understood  this  to  be  the  Calvinistic  doctrine, 
nor  has  it  been  so  understood  by  Calvinists  them- 
selves. The  doctrine  which  Calvinists  have 
maintained  is,  that  the  present  system,  is  the  best 
conceivable  system — that  it  is  the  very  system 
which  God  preferred  to  all  others — and  that  not- 
withstanding the  sin  and  misery  which  it  includes, 
it  will  result  in  a  higher  display  of  the  divine  glory, 
than  any  other  system  of  which  the  infinite  mind 
could  conceive.  They  have  never  supposed  that 
God  was  unable  to  secure  universal  holiness  in 
his  moral   kingdom ;   but  have   uniformly  main- 


OF     NEW     HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  131 

tained  that  he  permitted  sin  to  exist,  because  he 
saw  that  he  could  so  ov  errule  it,  and  counteract 
its  tendencies,  as  to  render  it  conducive  to  the 
highest  good  of  the  universe.  They  believe  that 
he  can  bring  good  out  of  evil,  and  light  out  of 
darkness  ;  and  that  he  will  make  the  wrath  of 
man  to  praise  him,  and  restrain  the  remainder. 
They  believe  that  his  character  is  perfect — that 
his  plan  is  perfect — that  his  work  is  prefect,  and 
that  nothing  will  ever  be  permitted  to  exist,  which 
was  not  included  in  his  eternal  purpose,  and 
which  will  not  be  rendered  subservient  to  his 
great  and  glorious  designs. 

Yours  affectionately. 


LETTER,  XIV. 


Jlaich  23, 1837, 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

In  ray  last  letter,  i  attempted  to  show  the  wide 
difference  between  the  views  of  the  New  Haven 
divines  and  those  of  the  standard  orthodox  wri- 
ters of  New  England,  in  relation  to  the  govern- 
ment of  God  over  the  moral  universe.  The  dif- 
ference is  no  less  palpable  in  regard  to  Original 
Sin  and  Native  Depravity, 

The  New  Haven  divines  maintain  that  man- 
kind come  into  the  world  with  the  same  nature  in 
kind  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created — 
that  there  is  no  natural  or  constitutional  propen- 
sity to  sin;  no  hereditary  corruption  of  nature 
which  is  transmitted  from  parent  to  child,  and 
by  consequence,  that  Adam  was  not  the  federal 
head  and  representative  of  his  posterity.  They 
maintain  that  infants  sustain  the  same  relation  to 
the  moral  government  of  God  as  brute  animals ; 
that  they  are  in  no  sense  sinners,  and  that  death, 
in  their  case,  is  not  on  account  of  sin.  To  be 
consistent,  they  must,  of  course,  maintain  that 
they  do  not  need  redemption  or  regeneration. 


NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  133 

In  proof  of  this  statement,  I  refer  to  the  fol- 
lowing passages,  out  of  many  that  might  be 
quoted  : 

**  But  Mr.  Harvey  may  retort  the  question 
upon  us,  and  ask,  whence,  upon  our  principles, 
does  man  derive  his  moral  nature?  We  answer, 
without  hesitation,  from  the  hand  of  God  who 
made  him."  '*  Every  soul,  as  it  enters  on  exist- 
ence, is  a  production  of  creative  power.  He 
who  forms  it,  gives  it  from  the  first  that  nature  or 
constitution  which  prepares  it  for  action  when 
placed  in  the  appropriate  circumstances  of  its 
being.  And  as  well  might  we  affirm  that  it  is 
the  nature  of  a  stone  to  fall,  and  yet  that  God  is 
not  the  author  of  gravitation,  as  that  nature  is 
itself  sinful,  and  yet  that  God  is  not  the  author 
of  sin."  "  If  Mr.  Harvey  chooses  to  maintain 
that  minds  are  propagated,  and  that  sin  is  trans- 
mitted in  generation,  it  will  only  remove  the  dif- 
ficulty one  step  further  back.  For,  we  ask,  who 
established  the  laws  of  propagation  ?  Can  a 
being  come  into  existence  of  which  God  is  not 
the  author  ?  Every  soul,  then,  which  becomes 
united  to  a  human  body,  has  either  existed  from 
eternity,  or  has  been  brought  into  existence  by 
God,  and  every  thing  pertaining  to  such  a  soul 
which  is  not  its  *  own  act,'  must  of  necessity 
result  from  the  act  of  the  Creator." — Christian 
Spectator  for  1829,  pp.  348,  349. 

"  Infants  die.  The  answer  has  been  given  a 
thousand  times,  brutes  die  also.  But  Mr.  Har- 
vey replies,  '  animals  are  not  subjects  of  the 
moral  government  of  God.'  Neither  are  infants 
previous  to  moral  agency ;  for  what  has  moral 
government  to  do  with  those  who  are  not  moral 
12 


134  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

agents?  Animals  and  infants,  previous  to  moral 
agency,  do  therefore,  stand  on  precisely  the  same 
ground  in  reference  to  this  subject.  Suffering 
and  death  afford  no  more  evidence  of  sin  in  one 
case  than  in  the  other. — Id.  p.  373. 

"  Did  not  vehement  desire  produce  sin  in 
Adam's  first  act  of  transgression  ?  Was  there 
any  previous  principle  of  depravity  in  him  1 
Why  then  may  not  strong  constitutional  desires 
be  followed  now  by  a  choice  of  their  objects,  as 
well  as  in  the  case  of  Adam?" — Id.  p.  3(56. 

"  If  no  being  can  sin,  without  a  constitutional 
propensity  to  sin,  how  came  Adam  to  sin?  If 
one  being,  as  Adam,  can  sin,  and  did  in  fact  sin, 
without  such  a  propensity,  why  may  not  others?" 
— Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  Vol.  vi.  p.  13. 

"  Mankind  come  into  the  world  with  the  same 
nature  in  kind  as  that  with  which  Adam  was 
created." — Id.  p.  5. 

*'  What  influence  has  the  fall  exerted  on  the 
posterity  of  Adam  ?  I  answer,  that  it  may  have 
been  to  change  their  nature,  not  in  kind,  but  in 
degree."— /d  p.  12. 

Compare  the  foregoing  with  the  following  ex- 
tracts : 

President  Edwards.  *'  By  original  sin,  as 
the  phrase  has  been  most  commonly  used  by 
divines,  is  meant  innate,  sinful  depravity  of  the 
heart.  But  yet,  when  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin  is  spoken  of,  it  is  vulgarly  understood  in  that 
latitude,  as  to  include  not  only  the  depravity  of 
nature,  but  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin,  or 
in  other  words,  the  liableness  or  exposedness  of 
Adam's  posterity,  in  the  divine  judgment  to  par- 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  135 

take  of  the  punishment  of  that  sin." — Treatise 
on  Original  Sin,  pp.  1,  2. 

"  The  natural  state  of  the  mind  of  man  is 
attended  with  a  propensity  of  nature,  which  is 
prevalent  and  effectual  to  such  an  issue  ;  and, 
therefore  their  nature  is  corrupt  and  depraved 
with  a  moral  depravity  that  amounts  to  and  im- 
plies their  utter  undoing. — Id.  p.  9. 

"  We  have  the  same  evidence  that  the  propen- 
sity in  this  case  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
and  don't  arise  from  any  particular  circumstan- 
ces, as  we  have  in  any  case  whatsoever  ;  which 
is  only  by  the  effects  appearing  to  be  the  same  in 
all  changes  of  time  and  place,  and  under  all  vari- 
ations of  circumstances. — Id.  p.  23. 

*'  That  propensity  which  has  been  proved  to 
be  in  the  nature  of  all  mankind  must  be  a  very 
evil,  depraved,  and  pernicious  propensity ;  ma- 
king it  manifest  that  the  soul  of  man,  as  it  is  by 
nature,  is  in  a  corrupt,  fallen,  and  ruined  state." 
—Id.  p.  27. 

"In  this  place,  (Job,  xv.  14,)  we  are  not  only 
told  how  wicked  man's  heart  is,  but  also,  how 
men  come  by  such  wickedness ;  even  by  being 
of  the  race  of  mankind,  by  ordinary  generation. 
'Tis  most  plain  that  man  being  born  of  a  woman 
is  the  reason  of  his  not  being  clean."  "  And 
without  doubt,  David  has  respect  to  this  same 
way  of  derivation,  when  he  says,  (Psalm  Ivii :  5,) 
*  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did 
my  mother  coneive  me.'  " — Id.  pp.  191,  195. 

But  it  is  needless  to  quote  from  Edwards. 
Any  one  who  will  read  attentively  his  Treatise 
on  Original  Sin,  will  perceive  that  it  is  irreconci- 


136  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

leably  at  variance  with  the  system  of  the  New 
Haven  divines. 

Dr.  Bellamy.  "  Adam  was  created  in  the 
image  of  God ;  it  was  co-natural  to  him  to  love 
God  with  all  his  heart,  and  this  v/ould  have  been 
our  case  had  he  not  rebelled  against  God ;  but 
now  we  are  born  devoid  of  the  divine  image, 
have  no  heart  for  God,  are  transgressors  from  the 
womb,  by  nature  children  of  wrath."  "  We  are 
born  into  the  world,  not  only  destitute  of  a  con- 
formity to  the  law,  but  we  are  natively,  diamet- 
rically opposed  to  it  in  the  temper  of  our  hearts," 
"  If  any  should  inquire,  '  But  can  it  be  right 
that  Adam's  sin  should  have  any  influence  upon 
us  V  I  answer,  it  is  a  plain  case  that  it  actually 
has,  and  we  may  depend  upon  it  that  the  judge 
of  all  the  earth  does  right.  And  besides,  why 
may  not  God  make  Adam  our  public  head  and 
representative,  to  act  in  our  room,  as  he  has 
since,  for  our  recovery,  made  his  own  son  our 
public  head  and  representative."  ''  If  he  had 
kept  the  covenant  of  his  God,  and  secured  hap- 
piness to  all  his  race,  should  we  not  forever  have 
blessed  God  for  so  good  a  constitution?"  '''  And 
if  we  should  thus  have  approved  this  constitu- 
tion, had  Adam  never  sinned,  why  might  we  not 
as  justly  approve  it  now,  if  \ve  would  be  but  dis- 
interestedly partial  ?" — Bellamy^ s  ivorks,  Vol.  1, 
pp.201,  221. 

Dr.  Hopkins.  *'  By  the  constitution  and  cov- 
enant with  Adam,  his  first  disobedience  was  the 
disobedience  of  all  mankind.  That  is,  the  sin 
and  consequent  ruin  of  all  the  human  race  was, 
by  this  constitution,  infallibly  connected  with  the 
first  sin  of  the  head  and  father  of  the  race.     By 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY  137 

the  divine  constitution,  the  appointment  of  God, 
if  the  head  and  father  of  mankind  sinned,  the 
whole  race  of  men,  all  his  posterity  should  sin, 
and  in  this  sense,  it  would  be  the  sin  of  the  whole. 
Accordingly,  when  the  head  became  a  sinner, 
and  moral  corruption  took  possession  of  the 
heart,  a  sure  foundation  was  laid  by  the  constitu- 
tion under  which  man  was,  for  the  same  sin  and 
moral  corruption  to  take  place,  and  spread 
through  all  the  human  race;  just  as  by  a  divine 
appointment,  or  law  of  nature,  the  sap  of  the 
root  or  original  stock  of  a  tree,  passes  into  the 
numerous  limbs,  twigs,  and  fruit  of  the  tree,  as 
they  successively  grow  out  of  it." — (See  the  con- 
nexion.)— Hopkin's  System,  Vol.  1,  p.  250. 

Dr.  Dvvight.  The  thirty-second  sermon  in 
his  system  of  theology  is  entitled,  "  Human  de- 
pravity derived  from  Adam."  In  this  sermon, 
commenting  on  Romans  v.  12,  19,  he  says,  "  The 
meaning  of  these  passages  is,  I  think,  plainly  the 
following  :  that  by  means  of  the  offence  or  trans- 
gression of  Adam,  the  judgment  or  sentence  of 
God  came  upon  all  men  unto  condemnation,  be- 
cause, and  solely  because,  all  men  in  that  state  of 
things  which  was  constituted  in  consequence  of 
the  transgression  of  Adam,  became  sinners." 
He  says  also,  "  It  cannot,  I  think,  be  questioned, 
that  Moses  intended  to  inform  us  that  Seth  was 
begotten  in  the  moral  likeness  of  Adam  after  his 
apostacy,  and  sustained  from  his  birth  a  moral 
character  similar  to  that  which  his  two  brothers, 
Cain  and  Abel,  also  sustained.  This  view  of 
the  subject  appears  plainly  to  have  been  adopted 
by  Job,  when  he  asks,  '  who  can  bring  a  clean 
thing  out  of  an  unclean?  Not  one.'  (Job  xiv.  4.) 
12^ 


133  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

By  Bildad,  when  he  asks,  '  how  then  can  man 
be  justified  with  God,  or  how  can  he  be  clean 
that  is  born  of  a  woman?'  (xxv.  4.)  By  David, 
when  he  says,  (Psahii,  li.  5.)  *  behold  I  was  sha- 
pen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  con- 
ceive me.'  And  by  Paul,  when  he  says,  *  as  we 
have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy,  (Adam)  so 
we  shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly 
(Adam)  (1  Cor.  xv.  49.)  But  if  Seth,  Cain,  and 
Abel  derived  their  corruption  from  the  apostacy 
of  their  parents,  then  it  is  true,  not  only  that 
their  corruption,  but  that  of  all  mankind,  exists 
in  consequence  of  the  apostacy." 

Dr.  Smalley.  "  We  are  not  condemned 
being  innocent.  We  were  born  sinners — we 
were  conceived  sinners,  and  as  such  only  are  con- 
demned. We  did  not  make  ourselves  sinners, 
it  is  true,  by  any  bad  conduct  before  we  were 
inclined  to  sin — but  no  more  did  Adam.  He 
was  condemned  only  for  being  a  sinner,  and 
committing  sin,  and  just  so  is  every  one  of  us. 
Only  as,  according  to  a  divine  constitution, 
founded  in  sovereign  wisdom  entirely,  the  trial 
of  human  nature  in  innocence  was  in  Adam 
alone,  (either  including  or  exclusively  of  Eve,)  so 
it  may  with  propriety  be  said,  "  By  the  offence  of 
one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemna- 
tion ;"  for  had  he  persevered  in  obedience,  the 
justification  of  life  would  have  come  upon  all  on 
account  of  his  righteousness.  It  is  agreeable  to 
common  sense,  and  seems  plainly  supposed  in 
several  texts  and  doctrines  of  scripture,  that  de- 
pravity of  nature  must  be  antecedent  to  all  sinful 
actions,  and  the  cause  of  them.  But  if  so,  there 
may  be  a  wicked  heart  prior  to  knowledge.  There 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  139 

may  be  a  propensity  to  sinful  actions  in  a  child, 
before  it  come  to  years  to  choose  the  evil,  and 
refuse  the  good.  This  may  be  in  us  as  early  as 
we  have  souls." — Smallcy' s  Sermons,  Sc7'mon  11. 
(See  the  whole  Sermon.) 

Dr.  Griffin.  "  By  the  tirst  creation  or  birth, 
mankind  are  united  to  the  first  Adam,  and  inher- 
it the  character  which  he  possessed  immediately 
after  the  fall :  until,  by  a  second  creation  or  birth, 
they  are  united  to  the  second  Adam,  and  become 
partakers  of  his  holiness."  *'  Here  is  a  wonder 
to  be  accounted  for — sin  tainting  every  individ- 
ual of  Adam's  race,  in  every  age,  country,  and 
condition,  and  surviving  in  every  he:;rt,  all  exer- 
tions to  destroy  it.  One  would  think  this  might 
prove,  if  any  thing  could  prove,  that  sin  belongs 
to  the  nature  of  man  as  much  as  reason  or  speech, 
(though  in  a  sense  altogether  compatible  with 
blame,)  and  must  be  derived,  like  other  universal 
attributes  of  our  nature,  from  the  original  pa- 
rent, propagated  precisely  like  reason  and 
speech,  (neither  of  which  is  exercised  at  first,) 
propagated  like  many  other  propensities,  mental 
as  well  as  bodily,  which  certainly  are  inherited 
from  parents,  propagated  like  the  noxious  nature 
of  other  animals." — Park  Street  Lectiircs,  pp. 
11,  12,  13. 

Andover  Confession  of  Faith.  "  Adam, 
the  federal  head  and  representative  of  the  human 
race,  was  placed  in  a  state  of  probation,  and  in 
consequence  of  his  disobedience,  all  his  descend- 
ants are  constituted  sinners,  and  by  nature  every 
man  is  personally  depraved." 

Dr.  Woods. — "  I  inquire  whether  Adam's  sin 
effects  his  posterity  in  this  way,  viz:  that  by  a 


140  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

special   divine  constitution  they  are,  in   conse- 
quence of  his  fall,  born  in    a  state  of  moral  de- 
pravity leading  to  certain  ruin;  or   that,  accord- 
ing to  the  common  law  of  descent,  they  are  par- 
takers of  a  corrupt  nature,  the  offspring  being 
like   the  parent;   and  that  suffering    and    death 
come  upon  them,  not  as  personally  innocent  and 
pure,  but  as  depraved   and  sinful   beings.     This 
opinion    is    maintained    by    Calvin,    Edwards, 
Dwight,  and  orthodox  divines   generally.     And 
this  is  the  view  of  the  subject   which  I  consider 
as  more  conformable  to  the  word  of  God,  and  to 
facts,  than  any  other.     As  to  those  who  deny  the 
doctrine  of  native  depravity,  and  the  doctrine  of 
imputation,  and  hold  the  doctrine  of  John  Tay- 
lor and  the  Unitarians,  and  yet  profess  to  believe 
that  we  are  depraved  and  ruined  in  consequence 
of  Adam's  sin,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  their 
belief  amounts  to.     They  say  Adam's  sin  had  an 
influence,  but  they  deny  all  the  conceivable  ways 
in  which  it  could  have  an  influence  and  particu- 
larly the  ways  which  are  most  clearly  brought  to 
view  in  Rom.  v,  and  in  other  parts  of  Scripture. 
If  I  am  asked  whether  1   hold  the  doctrine  of 
imputation  my  reply  must  depend  on  the  mean- 
ing you  give  to  the  word.     Just  make  the  ques- 
tion definite  by  substituting  the  explanation  for 
the  word,   and  an  answer  will  be  easy.     Do  you 
then  mean  what  Stapfer,  and  Edwards,  and  many 
others  mean,  viz:  that  for  God   to  give  Adam  a 
posterity  like  himself  and  to  impute  his  sin  to 
them,  is  one  and  the  same  thing.     Then  my  an- 
swer is,  that  God  did,  in  this  sense  impute  Adam's 
sin  to  his  posterity.     This  is  the  very  thing  im- 
plied in  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity.     By  the 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  141 

doctrine  of  imputation,  do  you  mean  that  Adam's 
sin  was  the  occasion  of  our  ruin;  that  it  was  the 
distant,  though  real  cause  of  our  condemnation 
and  death?  I  consider  the  doctrine,  thus  under- 
stood, to  be  according  to  scripture.  Do  you 
mean  that  we  are  guilty,  that  is,  (according  to  the 
true  original  meaning  of  the  word,)  exposed  to 
suffering  on  account  of  Adam's  sin  ?  In  this 
view,  too,  I  think  the  doctrine  scriptural.  But  if 
the  doctrine  of  imputation  means,  that  for  Adam's 
sin  alone  God  inflicts  the  penalty  of  the  law  upon 
any  one  of  his  posterity,  they  themselves  being 
perfectly  sinless,  then  the  doctrine,  in  my  view, 
wants  proof  There  appears  to  be  no  such  place 
for  such  a  doctrine,  seeing  all  Adam's  posterity 
are,  from  the  first  morally  depraved.  And  if 
they  are  allowed  to  be  so,  I  know  not  why  any 
one  should  think  that  God,  makes  no  account  of 
their  depravity,  in  the  sufferings  which  he  brings 
upon  them." — Essay  on  Native  Depravity,  pp. 
186—188. 

It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  quotations — but 
it  cannot  surely  be  necessary.  There  may  have 
been  a  shade  of  difference  among  New  England 
divines  in  their  views  of  original  sin.  But  so  far 
as  I  have  known,  all  who  have  claimed  to  be 
Calvinists,  (until  the  Nev/  Haven  divines  arose,) 
have  maintained  that  Adam  is  the  federal  head 
and  representative  of  his  posterity,  the  covenant 
was  made  with  him,  not  only  for  himself,  but  his 
posterity,  that  a  condition  of  the  covenant  was, 
that  if  he  persevered  in  holiness,  he  should  be  the 
progenitor  of  a  holy  race,  and  if  he  apostatized, 
he  should  be  the  progenitor  of  an  unholy  race, 
and  that  all  mankind  come  into  the  world  in  a 


143  NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY. 

State  of  condemnation,  and  that  none  can  be  sav- 
ed without  regeneration  and  redemption  by  the 
blood  of  Christ.  How  widely  these  views  differ 
from  those  maintained  by  the  New  Haven  divines, 
is  sufficiently  apparent  from  extracts  from  their 
writings  in  this,  and  previous  letters. 

Yours  affectionately. 


LETTER   XV. 

April  26, 1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

The  v'ievvs  of  the  New  Haven  divines  in  rela- 
tion to  the  doctrine  of  regeneration,  differ  wide- 
ly from  those  which  have  been  maintained  by 
New  England  Calvinists.  They  maintain  that 
the  term  regeneration  is  to  be  understood  in  two 
senses — the  theological  and  popular  sense.  In  the 
first  sense,  it  denotes  a  change  in  the  governing 
purpose  of  the  mind,  and  is  that  act  of  the  will  or 
heart,  by  which  the  sinner,  prompted  by  self-love, 
chooses  God  as  his  portion  or  chief  good.  In  the 
last,  or  popular  sense,  it  denotes  a  process  or  series 
of  acts  and  states  of  mind,  and  includes  all  those 
acts  which  they  denominate  "  using  the  means 
of  regeneration."  They  maintain  that  antece- 
dent to  regeneration,  in  the  restricted,  or  theolo- 
gical sense,  the  selfish  principle  is  suspended  in 
the  sinner's  heart,  that  the  sinner  then  ceases  to 
sin,  and  is  in  a  state  of  neutrality,  and  that  in 
this  state,  he  uses  the  means  of  regeneration  with 
motives  which  are  neither  right  nor  wrong — he 
takes    into    solemn    consideration   the    question 


144  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

whether  the  highest  happiness  is  to  be  found  in 
God  or  in  the  world — he  pursues  this  inquiry, 
till  it  results  in  the  conviction  that  such  happi- 
ness is  to  be  found  in  God  only.  He  follows  up 
the  conviction  with  engrossing  contemplation, 
till  he  discovers  an  excellence  in  divine  objects 
which  excites  him  to  make  desperate  efforts  to 
give  his  heart  to  God,  and  in  this  process  of 
thought,  of  effort,  and  of  action,  he  preseveres 
till  it  results  in  a  change  of  heart.  Thus  they, 
in  fact,  represent  regeneration  as  a  gradual  and 
progressive  work.  They  also  maintain  that  the 
sinner  may  so  resist  the  grace  of  God,  as  to  ren- 
der it  impossible  for  God  to  convert  him. 

The  following  quotations  will  exhibit  their 
views  on  this  subject. 

"  Regeneration  considered  as  a  moral  change 
of  which  man  is  the  subject,  giving  God  the 
he^rt — making  a  new  heart — loving  God  su- 
premely, &/C.  are  terms  and  phrases,  which,  in 
popular  use,  denote  a  complex  act.  Each,  in 
popular  use,  denotes  what,  in  a  more  analytical 
mode  of  speaking,  may  be  viewed  and  described 
as  made  up  of  several  particular  acts  and  states 
of  mind,  or  a  series  of  such  acts  and  states.'^ 
"  When  we  speak  of  the  means  of  regeneration, 
we  shall  use  the  word  regeneration  in  a  more 
limited  import  than  its  ordinary  popular  import, 
and  shall  confine  it  chiefly,  for  the  sake  of  con- 
venient phraseology,  to  the  act  of  the  will  or 
heart,  in  distinction  from  other  mental  acts  con- 
nected with  it,  or  to  that  act  of  the  will  or  heart 
which  consists  in  a  preference  of  God  to  every 
other  object,  or  to  that  disposition  of  heart,  or 
governing  affection  or  purpose  of  the  man,  which 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  145 

consecrates  him  to  the  service  of  God."  *'We 
proceed  to  say,  then-,  that  before  the  act  of  the 
will  or  heart,  in  which  the  sinner  first  prefers 
God  to  every  other  object,  the  object  of  the  pre- 
ference must  be  viewed  or  estimated  as  the  great- 
est good.  Before  the  object  can  be  viewed  as 
the  greatest  good,  it  must  be  compared  with 
other  objects,  as  both  are  sources  or  means  of 
good.  Before  this  act  of  comparing,  there  must 
be  an  act  dictated,  not  by  selfishness,  but  by  self 
love,  in  which  the  mind  determines  to  direct  its 
thoughts  to  the  objects  for  the  sake  of  consid- 
ering their  relative  value,  of  forming  a  judgment 
respecting  it,  and  of  choosing  the  one  or  the 
other  as  the  chief  good."  "  Divine  truth  does 
not  become  a  means  to  this  end,  until  the  selfish 
principle,  so  long  cherished  in  the  heart,  is  sus- 
pended ;  and  the  mind  is  left  to  the  control  of 
that  constitutional  desire  for  happiness,  which  is 
an  original  principle  of  our  nature."  *'  Let  the 
sinner,  then,  as  a  being  who  loves  happiness  and 
desires  the  highest  degree  of  it,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  such  a  desire,  take  into  solemn  consid- 
eration the  question  whether  the  highest  happi- 
ness is  to  be  found  in  God  or  in  the  world ;  let 
him  pursue  this  inquiry,  if  need  be,  till  it  result 
in  the  conviction  that  such  happiness  is  to  be 
found  in  God  only ;  and  let  him  follow  up  this 
conviction  with  that  intent  and  engrossing  con- 
templation of  the  realities  which  truth  discloses, 
and  with  that  stirring  up  of  his  sensibilities  in 
view  of  them,  which  shall  invest  the  world,  when 
considered  as  his  only  portion,  with  an  aspect  of 
insignificance,  of  gloom,  and  even  of  terror,  and 
which  shall  chill  and  suspend  his  present  active 
13 


146  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

love  of  it ;  and  let  the  contemplation  be  perse- 
vered in,  till  it  shall  discover  a  reality  and  excel- 
lence in  the  objects  of  holy  affection,  which  shall 
put  him  upon  direct  and  desperate  efforts  to  fix 
his  heart  upon  them;  and  let  this  process  of 
thought,  of  effort,  and  of  action,  be  entered  upon 
as  one  which  is  never  to  be  abandoned  until  the 
end  proposed  by  it  is  accomplished — until  the 
only  living  and  true  God  is  loved  and  chosen,  as 
his  God  forever  ;  and  we  say,  that  in  this  way  the 
work  of  his  regeneration,  through  grace,  may  be 
accomplished."  "  God  tells  the  sinner,  that  it  is 
better  to  obey  than  to  disobey  him.  The  thought 
conveyed  in  the  mind  of  the  sinner  is  an  arrow 
in  his  sentient  nature.  It  penetrates,  it  fastens, 
it  is  felt.  The  appropriate  tendency  of  the  feel- 
ings is  to  the  voluntary  act  of  sober,  solemn  con- 
sideration. This  act  the  sinner  has  power  to  do 
or  to  avoid.  And  here  the  mental  process  of  us- 
ing the  means  of  regeneration,  either  begins  or 
does  not  begin.  If  he  thus  considers,  it  begins, 
and  nov/  the  appropriate  tendency  of  considera- 
tion is  to  deepen  emotion ;  and  thus,  by  the  mu- 
tual influence  of  thought  and  feeling,  the  ten- 
dency of  the  mind  to  that  entire  mental  process 
which  we  have  described,  and  the  tendency  of 
the  process  to  a  change  of  heart  become  undeni- 
able, and  conspicuous  in  human  consciousness." 
—Ch.  Spec,  for  1829,  pp.  16,  17,  18,  19,  32,  33, 
227. 

"As  to  those  who  hold  to  the  infusion  of 
something  into  the  soul  previous,  either  in  the 
order  of  time  or  of  nature,  to  the  first  right  af- 
fection, and  as  a  sort  of  fountain  from  which 
such  affection  is  to  flow,  we  would  only  say,  that 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  147 

although  we  do  not  impute  to  them  the  blasphe- 
my, yet  we  cannot  wholly  acquit  them  of  the  ab- 
surdity of  Gibbon,  who,  in  pretending  to  de- 
scribe the  manner  in  which  the  primitive  teach- 
ers of  Christianity  were  inspired,  says,  they  were 
mere  organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  just  as  a  pipe  or 
flute  is  of  him  who  blows  into  it." — Ch.  Spec, 
for  1833,  p.  3G1. 

"  I  do  not  believe  that  the  grace  of  God  can 
be  truly  said  to  be  irresistible,  in  the  primary  and 
proper  sense  of  this  term.  But  I  do  believe  that 
in  all  cases  it  may  be  resisted  by  man  as  a  free, 
moral  agent." — Dr.  Taylor's  letter  to  Dr. 
Halves. 

"  The  means  of  reclaiming  grace,  which  meet 
him  in  the  word  and  Spirit  of  God,  are  those  by 
which  the  Father  draws,  induces,  just  such  sin- 
ners as  himself,  voluntarily  to  submit  to  Christ ; 
and  these  means  all  favor  the  act  of  his  immedi- 
ate submission.  To  this  influence  he  can  yield, 
and  thus  be  drawn  by  the  Father.  This  influence 
he  can  resist,  and  thus  harden  his  heart  against 
God."— C/<.  Spec,  for  1831,  p.  637. 

"  Free  moral  agents  can  do  wronor  under  all 
possible  preventing  influence."  "  What  finite 
being,  then,  we  ask,  can  know  that  a  universe  of 
free  agents,  who  possess,  of  course,  the  power 
of  sinning,  could  have  been  held  back  from  the 
exercise  of  that  power,  in  every  possible  con- 
junction of  circumstances,  even  by  all  the  influ- 
ences to  obedience  which  God  can  exert  upon 
them  without  destroying  their  freedom." — Ch. 
Spec,  for  1830,  p.  563. 

Compare  the  foregoing  with  the  following  ex- 
tracts. 


148  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

President  Edwards.  *'  The  nature  of  vir- 
tue being  a  positive  thing,  can  proceed  from  no- 
thing but  God's  immediate  influence  and  must 
take  its  rise  from  creation  or  infusion  by  God. 
For  it  must  be  either  from  that,  or  from  our  own 
choice  and  production,  either  at  once,  or  gradu- 
ally by  culture.  But  it  cannot  begin,  or  take  its 
rise  from  the  latter,  viz,  our  choice  or  volunta-^ 
ry  diligence.  For  if  there  exists  nothing  at  all 
of  the  nature  of  virtue  before,  it  cannot  come 
from  cultivation  ;  for  by  the  supposition,  there  is 
■nothing  of  the  nature  of  virtue  to  cultivate. 
The  first  virtuous  choice,  or  a  disposition  to  it, 
must  be  immediately  given,  or  it  must  proceed 
from  a  preceding  choice.  If  the  first  virtuous 
act  of  will  or  choice,  be  from  a  preceding  act  of 
will  or  choice,  that  preceding  act  of  choice  must 
be  a  virtuous  act  of  choice,  which  is  contrary  to 
the  supposition."  "  As  to  man's  inability  to  con- 
vert himself  In  them  that  are  totally  corrupt, 
there  can  be  no  tendency  towards  their  making 
their  hearts  better,  till  they  begin  to  repent  of 
the  badness  of  their  hearts.  For  if  they  do  not 
repent  they  still  approve  of  it,  and  that  tends  to 
maintain  their  badness  and  confirm  it.  The  heart 
can  have  no  tendency  to  make  itself  better,  till 
it  begins  to  have  a  better  tendency ;  for  therein 
consists  its  badness,  viz.  its  having  no  good  ten- 
dency or  inclination.  And  to  begin  to  have  a 
good  tendency,  or  which  is  the  same  thing,  a 
tendency  and  inclination  to  be  better,  is  the 
same  thing  as  to  begin  already  to  be  better." 
'*  The  first  virtue  v/e  have,  certainly  does  not 
arise  from  virtuous  endeavors  preceding  that  first 
virtue.     For  that  is  to  suppose  virtue  before  the 


OP    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  149 

first  virtue.  If  the  answer  be,  that  they  are  no 
good  endeavors,  they  have  nothing  at  ail  of  the 
nature  of  the  exercise  of  any  good  disposition, 
or  any  good  aim  and  intention,  or  of  any  virtu- 
ous sincerity  ;  I  ask  what  tendency  can  such  ef- 
forts of  the  mind,  as  are  wholly  empty  of  all 
goodness,  have  to  produce  true  moral  goodness 
in  the  heart?"  "Conversion  is  a  work  that  is 
done  at  once  and  not  gradually."  "Those  who 
deny  infusion  of  grace  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  must, 
of  necessity,  deny  the  Spirit  to  do  any  thing  at 
all."  "  The  questions  relating  to  efficacious 
grace,  controverted  between  us  and  the  Armini- 
ans,  are  two  :  1,  whether  the  grace  of  God  in 
giving  us  saving  virtue,  be  determined  and  deci- 
sive. 2,  whether  saving  virtue  be  decisively 
given  by  a  supernatural  and  sovereign  operation 
of  the  Spirit  of  God."  "  The  dispute  about 
grace,  being  resistible  or  irresistible,  is  perfect 
nonsense.  For  the  effect  of  grace  is  upon  the 
will ;  so  that  it  is  nonsense,  except  it  be  proper 
to  say  that  a  man  with  his  will  can  resist  his  own 
will ;  that  is,  except  it  be  possible  for  a  man  to 
will  a  thing  and  not  w^ill  it  at  the  same  time." — 
EdicarcVs  Remarks,  pp.  182,  217,  218,  223,  224, 
255,  275. 

Dr.  Dwight.  "  In  regeneration,  the  very 
same  thing  is  done  by  the  Spirit  of  God  for  the 
soul,  which  was  done  for  Adam  by  the  same  di- 
vine agent  at  his  creation.  The  soul  of  man  was 
created  with  a  relish  for  spiritual  objects.  The 
soul  of  every  man,  who  becomes  a  Christian,  is 
renewed  by  the  communication  of  the  same  rel- 
ish." "  The  carnal  mind,  that  is  the  original, 
natural  disposition  of  man  is  enmity  against 
13* 


150  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

God,  not  subject' to  his  law,  neither  indeed  can 
be.  Before  this  change,  therefore,  there  is  no 
holiness  in  the  character — no  relish  for  spiritual 
good — no  exercise  of  virtuous  volition — no  pur- 
suit of  virtuous  conduct.  AH  these  things  begin 
to  be  chosen,  and  to  be  practiced,  after  they  begin 
to  be  relished,  and  the  first  relish  for  them  ex- 
ists in  this  renovation  of  the  mind."  "  This 
change  is  instantaneous.  This  position  has  been 
as  much  controverted  as  any  of  those  advanced 
in  this  discourse ;  but,  as  it  seems  to  me,  with 
no  solid  support  either  from  reason  or  revelation. 
The  scheme  of  those  who  oppose  this  doctrine 
appears  generally  to  be  this ;  the  subject  of  re- 
generation is  supposed  to  begin  at  some  time  or 
other,  to  turn  his  attention  to  spiritual  concerns. 
He  begins  seriously  to  think  on  them  ;  to  read  con- 
cerning them  ;  to  dwell  upon  them  in  the  house  of 
God,  in  his  meditations,  in  his  closet,  and  in  his 
conversation.  By  degrees  he  gains  a  more 
thorough  acquaintance  with  the  guilt  and  danger 
of  sin,  and  the  importance  of  holiness,  pardon,  ac- 
ceptance, and  salvation.  By  degrees,  also,  he  re- 
nounces one  sinful  practice  and  propensity  after 
another,  andthus  finally  arrives  at  a  neutral  char- 
acter, in  which  he  is  neither  a  sinner,  in  the  abso- 
lute sense,  nor  yet  a  Christian.  Advancing  from 
this  stage,  he  begins,  at  length,  to  entertain,  in  a 
small  degree,  virtuous  affections,  and  to  adopt 
virtuous  conduct ;  and  thus  proceeds  from  one 
virtuous  attainment  to  another,  while  he  lives. 
Some  of  the  facts  here  supposed,  taken  sepa- 
rately, are  real ;  for  some  of  them  undoubtedly 
take  place  in  the  minds,  and  lives  of  those  who 
become  religious  men.     But  the  whole  consider- 


OF  NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  151 

ed  together,  and  as  a  scheme  concerning  this 
subject,  is,  in  my  view,  entirely  erroneous." 
"  There  is  a  period,  in  which  every  man  who  be- 
comes holy,  at  first  becomes  holy.  At  a  period, 
immediately  antecedent  to  this,  whenever  it  takes 
place,  he  was  not  holy.  The  commencement  of 
holiness  in  his  mind  was,  therefore,  instantane- 
ous :  or  it  bejran  to  exist  at  some  given  moment 
of  time.  Nor  is  it  in  the  nature  of  things  pos- 
sible, that  it  should  be  otherwise." — Dicighfs 
Theology,  Vol  2,  pp.  419,  420,  424. 

Dr.  Smalley.  "  Regeneration  is  such  an  es- 
sential change  of  nature,  as  supposes  something 
created  in  a  proper  and  strict  sense.  It  is  ex- 
pressly spoken  of  under  the  nanxe  and  notion  of 
a  creation  in  a  number  of  places.  Eph.  iv.  24. 
"  The  new  man  which  after  God  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness."  Col.  iii.  10. 
'*  The  new  man  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge 
after  the  image  of  him  who  created  him."  And 
.2  Cor.  v.  17.  *'  If  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is 
a  new  creature."  We  may  also  observe,  that 
most  if  not  all  other  phrases,  by  which  this 
change  is  expressed,  plainly  convey  the  same  idea 
of  it,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  it  is  effected." 
"  If  it  be  true  that  man  is  by  nature  totally  de- 
praved in  the  spirit  of  the  mind,  it  is  a  plain  case 
that  the  beginning  of  holiness  in  him,  can  be  no 
otherwise  than  by  a  new  creation.  When  spirit- 
ual life  is  once  begun  in  the  soul,  in  however  low 
a  degree,  it  may  be  preserved  and  inci  eased  by 
moral  means.  But  the  first  production  of  the 
radical  principle  of  life,  can  no  more  be  the  ef- 
fect of  any  second  cause,  than  the  first  root  or 
seed  of  any  plant  or  tree,  could  have  been  pro- 


152  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

duced  by  rain,  sunshine,  and  cultivation.  Those 
who  hold  that  regeneration  is  effected  by  the 
moral  power  of  light  and  truth,  either  leave  true 
holiness  wholly  out  of  the  account  from  the  first 
to  last,  or  suppose  mankind  not  totally  destitute 
of  it  by  nature ;  or  else  talk  in  a  manner  alto- 
gether inconsistent." 

Dr.  Strong.  "  Regeneration  is  that  change 
from  which  holy  exercises  proceed,  and  is  there- 
fore the  beginning  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul. 
It  is  the  beginning  of  that  moral  conformity  to 
God  which  is  the  true  preparation  for  heaven 
and  its  blessedness."  *'  It  is  not  the  modification 
of  any  moral  principle,  which  previously  existed 
in  the  mind,  but  the  production  of  one  that  is 
new.  The  heart  or  the  will  and  affections  are 
the  seat  of  this  change ;  therefore,  the  increase 
of  doctrinal  or  speculative  knowledge,  be  the  de- 
gree ever  so  great,  hath  no  tendency  to  regener- 
ate a  person.  Doctrinal  light  hath  its  seat  in  the 
understanding,  and  it  is  contrary  to  all  experi- 
ence, that  more  knowledge  of  an  object  to  which 
the  heart  or  will  is,  from  its  very  nature  oppos- 
ed, will  change  the  opposition  into  love.  We 
may  know  this  from  the  objects  of  love  and  ha- 
tred, which  daily  occur  in  the  experience  of  life. 
If  the  taste  of  the  mind  be  opposed  to  the  nature 
of  an  object,  the  more  the  object  is  seen,  the 
more  an  opposing  taste  will  exert  itself,  the  divine 
action  in  regenerating  an  unholy  soul  is,  there- 
fore, on  the  heart  or  will  and  affections.  What 
we  call  a  new  moral  principle,  may  also  be  called 
a  new  taste,  relish,  temper,  disposition,  or  habit 
of  feeling  respecting  moral  objects  and  truth." 

Dr.  Backus.     "  From  the    account    of  this 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY, 


153 


change  which  hath  been  taken  from  the  word  of 
truth,  it  appears  tliat  God  operateth  on  the  heart 
by  the  Spirit,  previously  to  its  holy  exertions, 
and  that  all  its  exercises  are  the  effects  of  this 
divine  operation."  "  The  heart  or  the  temper 
of  the  mind  is  changed  in  regeneration.  The 
design  of  it  is,  to  restore  the  holy  temper  which 
was  lost  by  the  npostacy."  "  Regeneration  is  an 
instantaneous  change.  There  can  be  no  point 
in  which  one  is  neither  in  a  renewed  nor  an  un- 
renewed state  ;  and  therefore,  when  the  new  heart 
is  given,  it  must  be  given  in  an  instant."  *'  The 
more  attentively  we  examine  the  doctrine  of  pro- 
gressive regeneration,  the  more  fully  it  will  ap- 
pear that  it  is  built  on  principles  which  deny  the 
full  extent  of  man's  depravity." — Backus  on  Re- 
generation, pp.  15,  20,  25. 

Dr.  Griffin.  "  Yielding  then  to  the  point 
that  man  is  an  enemy  to  God  till  the  change  is 
complete,  it  may  yet  be  asked,  is  not  that  enmity 
gradually  weakened  ?  It  cannot  be  radically 
weakened  till  its  cause  is  weakened,  which  is  su- 
preme self-love,  (or  more  generally  the  love  of 
the  creature,  for  the  social  affections,  too,  may 
set  up  their  objects  in  opposition,)  struggling 
against  the  law  and  administration  of  God.  But 
the  love  of  the  creature,  in  which  self-love  is  in- 
cluded, cannot  be  weakened  before  the  love  of 
God  is  introduced."  "  In  every  view,  then,  it 
appears  that  there  can  be  no  approaches  towards 
regeneration  in  the  antecedent  temper  of  the 
heart.  The  moment  before  the  change,  the  sin- 
ner is  as  far  from  sanctification  as  darkness  is 
from  light,  as  sin  is  from  holiness."  "  What  is 
the   character  of  the  natural  heart  ?     And  what 


154  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

is  holiness  ?  are  the  two  questions,  which  on  this 
subject  must  divide  the  world.  For  if  holiness 
is  a  simple  principle,  and  first  introduced  in  re- 
generation, especially,  if  it  is  a  principle  of  su- 
preme love  to  God,  following  supreme  selfishness, 
nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  the  change  is  as 
sudden  as  the  first  drop  that  falls  into  a  vessel,  or 
the  first  ray  that  penetrates  a  dungeon." — Park 
Street  Lectures,  pp.  93,  97,  101. 

Dr.  Woods.  "  The  renewal  of  sinners  is 
effected  by  divine  power.  The  scripture  teaches 
this  in  a  variety  of  ways.  It  represents  that  be- 
lievers are  God's  workmanship,  that  they  are 
born  of  God ;  that  he  quickens  them,  that  he 
gives  them  a  new  heart,  turns  them  from  sin,  and 
makes  them  obedient  and  holy.  It  ascribes  to 
God,  as  the  supreme  cause,  every  particular  thing 
which  constitutes  the  character  of  Christians. 
This  conception  of  the  divine  power  in  regene- 
ration is  plain  and  simple.  We  look  at  holiness 
in  man  and  ascribe  it  to  God  as  its  cause.  The 
view  we  take  of  this  new  spiritual  creation  is  just 
as  simple  and  obvious  as  of  the  natural  creation. 
The  heavens  and  the  earth  which  once  did  not 
exist,  but  which  now  exist  before  our  eyes,  are 
effects  flowing  from  the  operation  of  God's  pow- 
er. He  created  them.  They  exist  in  conse- 
quence of  the  act  of  his  will.  There  that  which 
is  proclaimed  is  material,  or  physical  ;  in  the 
other  case  spiritual,  or  moral ;  things  in  their  na- 
ture altogether  different  from  each  other,  but 
equally  effects,  resulting  from  the  operation  of 
divine  power  ;  so  that  the  honor  of  renewing 
sinners  is  due  to  God,  as  really  and  directly,  as 
the  honor  of  creating  the  world.     This  is  a  prac- 


OP    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  155 

tical  truth,  taught  clearly  in  the  scriptures,  and 
impressed  upon  the  hearts  of  all  Christians,  and 
impressed  more  and  more  deeply  as  they  advance 
in  the  divine  life."  "  How  can  it  be  supposed 
that  such  a  change  results  from  any  thing  in  man  1 
If  we  should  suppose  this,  we  should  quickly 
find  our  supposition  contradicted  by  the  word  of 
God,  and  should  be  taught  that  our  reliance  must 
be,  '  not  on  him  that  willeth  nor  on  him  that 
runneth,  but  on  God  who  showeth  mercy.'  " 
"  The  renewal  of  sinners  is  exercised  in  a  sove- 
reign manner.  By  this  is  meant  that  those  who 
are  regenerated  by  divine  power,  are  no  more  de- 
serving of  the  favor  bestowed  upon  them,  and  of 
themselves  no  more  inclined  to  turn  from  their 
sins,  than  those  who  are  left  to  perish.  The  rea- 
son why  one  man  is  renewed,  rather  than  others, 
cannot  be  found  in  any  attribute  of  his  character, 
or  in  any  exercise  of  his  understanding,  his  af- 
fections, or  his  will.  Unquestionably  God,  who 
is  infinitely  wise,  has  a  good  reason  for  all  that 
he  does.  But  the  reason  of  his  conduct  in  this 
case,  as  in  many  others,  lies  in  his  own  mind." — > 
Doctrinal  Tracts,  No.  19. 

These  extracts  afford  a  fair  specimen  of  the 
views  which  are  entertained  by  the  great  mass  of 
New  England  ministers  on  this  subject. 

Yours  affectionately. 


LETTER  XVI. 

May  16,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

The  views  entertained  by  the  New  Haven 
divines  respecting  the  influence  of  self-love,  are 
entirely  at  variance  with  what  has  been  denomi- 
nated New  England  Divinity.  According  to 
them,  all  moral  action,  whether  holy  or  sinful,  is 
prompted  by  self-love,  or  the  desire  of  happiness  ; 
in  other  words,  every  moral  being  makes  his  own 
happiness  his  ultimate  end.  Thus  they  virtual- 
ly destroy  the  radical  distinction  between  holi- 
ness and  sin,  making  them  both  proceed  from  the 
same  principle  of  action.  While  the  sinner 
chooses  the  world  for  his  portion  or  chief  good 
from  a  regard  to  his  own  happiness,  the  saint 
chooses  God  for  his  portion  or  chief  good  for  the 
same  reason.  The  distinction  of  course  between 
the  saint  and  the  sinner,  consists,  not  in  their 
having  different  ultimate  ends,  but  in  their  adopt- 
ing different  means  to  obtain  the  same  ultimate 
end.     Their  language  is  : 

"  There  is  no  more  difficulty  in  accounting 
for  the  fact,  that  the  yielding  sinner  supremely 
loves  God,  from  the    impulse  of  a  regard  to  his 


NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  157 

own  happiness,  than  there  is  in  explaining  the 
opposite  fact,  of  his  having  formerly,  under  the 
influence  of  the  same  principle,  when  perverted, 
supremely  loved  his  idols ;  which,  though  con- 
trary to  his  reason  and  conscience,  his  heart 
wickedly  preferred  as  his  highest  good.  The 
self-love  that  was  previously  in  servitude  to  his 
selfish  inclinations,  and  perverted  by  their  unhal- 
lowed influence,  now  breaks  away  from  that  ser- 
vitude, as  his  soul,  under  the  power  of  light  and 
motives  rendered  effectual  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is 
made  to  see  and  feel  where  its  true  interest  lies. 
And  no  sooner  is  this  duty  seen  and  felt,  through 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  than  the  man  who  is 
so  constituted  that  he  must  have  a  regard  to  what 
he  views  as  his  own  highest  good,  at  once 
chooses  Christ  and  his  service  as  the  means  of 
securing  it." — Christian  Sjjcctator,  fur  iSo'^,"^^. 
357,  35S. 

*'  This  self-love,  or  desire  of  happiness  is  the 
primary  cause  or  reason  of  all  acts  of  preference, 
or  choice,  which  fix  supremely  on  any  object. 
In  every  moral  being  who  forms  a  moral  charac- 
ter, there  must  be  a  first  moral  act  of  preference 
or  choice.  This  must  respect  some  one  object, 
God,  or  Mammon,  as  the  chief  good,  or  as  an 
object  of  supreme  affection.  Now,  whence 
comes  such  a  choice  or  preference?  Not  from 
a  previous  choice  or  preference  of  the  same  ob- 
ject, for  we  speak  of  the  Jirst  choice  of  the  ob- 
ject. The  answer  which  human  consciousness 
gives,  is  that  the  being  constituted  with  a  capa- 
city for  happiness  desires  to  be  happy  ;  and 
knowing  that  he  is  capable  of  deriving  happiness 
from  different  objects,  considers  from  which  the 
14 


158  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

greatest  happiness  may  be  derived,  and  as  in  this 
respect  he  judges  or  estimates  their  relative  value^ 
so  he  chooses  or  prefers,  one  or  the  other  as  his 
chiefgood."— J^./or  1829,  p.  21. 

"  Of  all  specific  voluntary  action,  the  happi- 
ness of  the  agent,  in  some  form,  is  the  ultimate 
end.''  Id.  p.  24.  *'  In  this  process,  the  sinner, 
from  the  desire  of  happiness,  turns  his  thoughts 
to  the  decisions  and  discoveries  of  eternal  truth. 
He  sees  and  feels  that  the  world,  taken  as  his 
portion  in  this  life,  brings  with  it  eternal  torment 
in  the  next.  Through  the  dread  of  the  misery 
connected  with  it,  this  object  of  affection  loses 
its  attractions,  and  is,  as  the  case  may  be,  so 
overcast  with  gloominess,  that  his  active  love 
and  pursuit  of  it  ceases.  Now  too,  he  sees  that 
the  supreme  good  is  in  God,  only ;  and  there  is 
a  desirableness  surpassing  what  belongs  to  all 
things  beside,  in  becoming  a  child  and  heir  of 
God."— /^.  p.  33. 

**  While  self-love  awakens  intense  desires  to 
comply  with  the  terms  of  mercy,  while  it  power- 
fully and  successfully  prompts  the  mind  to  look 
toward  the  only  object  of  supreme  affection,  that 
the  heart  may  fix  upon  it,  still  the  object  is  too 
dimly  seen — still  however  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  the  sinner,  disgusted  with  the  former  idols 
of  his  heart,  and  feeling  deeply  his  exposure  to 
the  wrath  of  God,  strongly  desires,  be  the  ap- 
pointed means  what  they  may,  to  escape  the 
dreadful  doom  ;  that  he  is  willing  to  fix,  and  does 
in  fact  fix  the  eye  of  contemplation  upon  the  ob- 
ject of  holy  affection,  and  does  with  such  glimp- 
ses of  its  glories  as  he  may  obtain,  feel  their 
attractions,  and  summon  his  heart  to  that  love  of 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  159 

God,  his  Saviour,  which  is  the  only  condition  of 
his  mercy."— /r/.  pp.  230,  231. 

Compare  these  with  the  following  extracts  : 
President  Edwards.  **  The  first  objective 
ground  of  gracious  affections,  is  the  transcend- 
antly  excellent  and  amiable  nature  of  divine 
things,  as  they  are  in  themselves,  and  not  any 
conceived  relation  they  bear  to  self  or  self  inter- 
est. Some  say  that  divine  love  arises  from  self- 
love,  and  that  it  is  impossible  in  the  nature  of 
things  for  any  man  to  love  God,  or  any  other 
being,  but  that  love  to  himself  must  be  the  foun- 
dation of  it.  But  I  humbly  suppose,  it  is  for 
want  of  consideration  they  say  so.  They  argue 
that  whoever  loves  God,  and  so  desires  his  glory, 
or  the  enjoyment  of  him,  desires  these  things  as 
his  own  happiness ;  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
beholding  and  the  enjoying  of  his  perfections, 
are  considered  as  things  agreeable  to  him,  tending 
to  make  him  happy.  And  so  they  say,  it  is  through 
self-love,  or  a  desire  of  his  own  happiness,  that 
he  desires  God  should  be  glorified,  and  desires  to 
behold  and  enjoy  his  glorious  perfections.  There 
is  no  doubt,  but  that  after  God's  glory  and  be- 
holding his  perfections,  are  becoming  agreeable 
to  him,  he  will  desire  them  as  he  desires  his  own 
happiness.  But  how  came  these  things  to  be  so 
very  agreeable  to  him,  that  he  esteems  it  his 
highest  happiness  to  glorify  God?  &c.  Is  not 
this  the  fruit  of  love?  Must  not  a  man  first  love 
God,  or  have  his  heart  united  to  him  before  he 
will  esteem  God's  good  his  own,  and  before  he 
will  desire  the  glorifying  and  enjoying  of  God  as 
liis  happiness?  It  is  not  strong  arguing,  because 
after  a  man  has  his  heart  united  to  God  in  love, 


160  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

and,  as  a  fruit  of  this,  he  desires  his  glory  and 
enjoyment  as  his  own  happiness,  that  therefore, 
a  desire  of  this  happiness  must  needs  be  the 
cause  and  foundation  of  his  love,  unless  it  be 
strong  arguing  that  because  a  father  begat  a  son, 
therefore  his  son  certainly  begat  him." — Ed- 
ward's  works,  Vol.  v.,  pp.  129 — 140. 

David  Brainerd.  "  These  things  I  saw  with 
great  clearness  when  I  was  thought  to  be  dying, 
and  God  gave  me  great  concern  for  his  church 
and  interest  in  the  world  at  this  time.  Not  so 
much,  because  the  late  remarkable  influence 
upon  the  minds  of  the  people  was  abated  and 
almost  wholly  gone,  as  because  the  false  religion, 
the  heats  of  imagination,  and  wild  and  selfish 
commotions  of  the  animal  affections,  which 
attended  the  work  of  grace  had  prevailed  so  far. 
This  was  that  which  my  mind  dwelt  upon  day 
and  night,  and  this  to  me  was  the  darkest  appear- 
ance respecting  religion  in  the  land.  For  it  was 
this  chiefly  that  had  prejudiced  the  world  against 
inward  religion.  This  I  saw  was  the  greatest 
misery  of  all,  that  so  few  saw  any  manner  of 
difference  between  those  exercises  which  are 
spiritual  and  holy,  and  those  which  have  self-love 
for  their  beginning,  centre  and  end.'' — JBrainerd'  s 
Life,  p.  498. 

Dr.  Bellamy.  "It  is  true,  many  a  carnal 
mind  is  ravished  to  think  that  God  loves  him, 
and  will  save  him  ;  but  in  this  case,  it  is  not  the 
true  character  of  God  which  charms  the  heart ; 
it  is  not  God  that  is  loved.  Strictly  speaking,  he 
only  loves  himself.  And  self-love  is  the  only 
source  of  all  his  affections.  Or,  if  we  call  it 
love  to  God,  it  is  of  no  other  kind  than  sinners 
feel  to  one  another.     For  sinners  love  those  that 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  161 

love  them'' — Bellamy's  works^    Vol.  II.  p.  507. 

Dr.  Hopkins.  "From  this  scriptural  and  ra- 
tional view  of  disinterested  affection,  in  which 
all  true  virtue,  piety  and  charity  consist,  may.be 
seen  what  a  great  and  dangerous  mistake  they 
have  made  who  suppose  there  is  no  virtue  or  true 
religion,  but  that  which  consists  in  self-love,  or 
originates  from  it,  and  that  no  man  ever  acts,  or 
can  act  from  any  other  principle,  whatever  he 
may  think  or  pretend.  Surely,  these  '  call  evil 
good,  and  good  evil  ;  put  darkness  for  light,  and 
light  for  darkness ;  bitter  for  sweet,  and  sweet 
for  bitter.'  They  call  that  virtue  and  goodness 
which  is  directly  opposed  to  all  true  virtue  and 
goodness,  and  in  which  all  moral  evil  consists." 
— Hopkins's  System,  Vol.  I.  p.  477. 

Dr.  Smalley.  "  Selfishness  is  so  universally 
condemned,  and  so  much  is  said  in  the  scriptures 
against  self-seeking,  that  one  would  think  no 
labored  proof  were  necessary  to  convince  any 
man  who  believes  the  Bible,  or  any  man  of 
common  sense,  whether  he  believes  the  Bible, 
or  not,  that  self-love  cannot  be  the  prima- 
ry source  of  all  true  virtue  and  religion.  Yet,, 
however  strange,  so  it  is,  many  great  philoso- 
phers, and  some  learned  divines,  have  been  pro- 
fessedly of  opinion  that  the  best  actions  of  good 
men,  and  their  most  virtuous  affections,  proceed 
from  a  mere  regard  to  themselves,  as  their  first 
principle  and  last  end.  They  think  that  a  well 
regulated  self-love  will  influence  a  man  to  what- 
soever things  are  honest,  amiable,  or  of  good 
report ;  though  a  misguided  self-love  often  leads 
men  into  the  reverse  of  all  these.  That  as, 
whenever  we  transgress  the  rule  of  right,  it  is 
14* 


162  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

from  a  wrong  idea  of  our  own  interest,  so  when 
we  conform  to  that  rule,  it  is  only  with  a  view  to 
our  own  interest  rightly  understood.  Accord- 
ingly they  suppose,  as  one  of  their  poets  hath 
said,  '  self-love  and  social  are  the  same.'  And  sev- 
eral systems  of  divinity  widely  different  in  other 
respects,  agree  in  this,  that  all  religion,  at  bot- 
tom, is  nothing  but  self-love."  *'  Indeed  to  sup- 
pose self  the  primary  principle,  and  only  ultimate 
end  of  the  virtuous  and  good,  is  obviously  to  con- 
found all  real  distinction  between  the  best  and 
the  worst  of  characters.  All  men,  and  undoubt-. 
edly  devils,  also,  have  self-love  enough  ;  and  are 
capable  of  all  those  actions  and  affections  which 
have  this  only  for  their  basis.  If  therefore,  this, 
were  the  bottom  principle  in  the  virtuous  ancJ 
good,  it  is  plain  there  would  be  no  essential  dif-^ 
ference  of  character  between  saints  and  sinners, 
or  between  the  angels  of  heaven,  and  devils  in 
hell.  All  the  difference  woxAdhe  circumstantial ; 
arising  from  the  different  conditions  in  which 
they  are  placed,  the  different  treatment  they  re- 
ceive, and  the  different  ideas  they  have  of  the 
disposition  of  other  beings  towards  them,  or  of 
their  own  interest." — Smallci/'s  Sermons,  pp.  115, 
116,  118,  119. 

Dr.  Griffin.  "  While  the  wicked  place  their 
whole  happiness  in  gratifying  affections  which 
terminate  in  themselves  or  a  limited  circle,  the 
right  things,  in  which  the  good  place  their  high- 
est happiness,  (I  suppose  it  will  not  be  denied,) 
are  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  prosperity  of  his 
kingdom.  Now  I  ask,  is  the  satisfaction  which 
they  hope  to  derive  to  themselves  from  that  good, 
or  the  good  itself,  their  supreme  object?  Do  they, 
rejoice  more  in  the  reflection  that  they  (rather 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  163 

than  others,)  shall  enjui/  the  sight  of  God's 
glory,  than  that  God  will  be  glorified  ?  If  so, 
they  no  longer  place  their  supreme  happiness  in 
his  glory  but  in  their  own  gratification — a  gratifi- 
cation, more  refined  indeed  than  the  grosser 
pleasures  of  sense,  but  still  personal  and  private. 
To  say  that  they  place  their  supreme  happiness  in 
the  glory  of  God,  and  yet  make  their  own  happi- 
ness the  highest  object,  is  a  plain  contradiction. 
To  place  their  supreme  happiness  in  the  glory  of 
<jod,  necessarily  implies  that  they  love  and  value 
his  glory  more  than  any  other  object. — Parh- 
.$treet  Lectures,  pp.  80,  81. 

Dr.  Porter.  '*  Deliberately  to  admit  that 
.■self-love  must  be  the  primary  ground  of  moral 
■affbction,  is  to  supersede  all  intelligent  discussion 
about  regeneration,  or  any  of  the  kindred  doc- 
trines of  grace.  This  one  principle  sweeps  the 
whole  away.  There  remains  no  radical  distinc- 
tion of  character  between  the  saint  and  the  sin- 
ner. The  most  depraved  individual  on  earth,  or 
even  among  apostate  spirits  is  doubtless  the  cen- 
tre of  his  own  aftections.  And  though  he  may 
have  perverted  views  of  what  is  his  real  interest, 
he  means,  notwithstanding  to  act,  and  does  act 
froma  '  primary'  regard  to  himself.  And  if  this 
is  the  highest  principle  of  action  to  a  holy  being, 
then  an  angel  and  a  devil  stand  on  the  same' 
ground  as  to  moral  character  ;  in  other  words, 
there  is  no  distinction  between  holiness  and  sin." 
— Letters  on  Revivals,  pp.  88,  89. 

The  views  contained  in  the  foregoing  extracts 
are  the  views  which  have  been  maintained  by  the 
great  body  of  orthodox  ministers  in  New  Eng- 
land on  this  subject. 

1  am  yours,  very  affectionately. 


LETTER,    XVli. 


May  18,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

Another  important  point  of  difference  between 
the  modern  speculations  and  New  England  Cal^ 
vinism,  relates  to  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  regeneration.  What  the  precise  views  of  the 
New  Haven  divines  are,  in  relation  to  this  point, 
it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  ascertain  from  their 
writings.  They  have  been  extensively  under^ 
stood  to  discard  the  doctrine  of  a  direct,  imme- 
diate, divine  efficiency ;  and  to  hold,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  never  operates  on  the  mind,  but 
through  the  medium  of  truth  or  motives.  This 
doctrine  is  explicitly  maintained  by  Mr.  Finney 
in  his  sermon  entitled  "  Sinners  bound  to  change 
their  own  hearts,"  and  has  been  repeatedly 
avowed  in  conversation  by  Dr.  Beecher.  I  have 
also  heard  Dr.  Beecher  affirm,  that  Dr.  Taylor's 
views  on  this  subject  accorded  with  his  own, 
That  such  are  the  views  of  the  New  Haven  di- 
vines, seems  to  be  implied  in  much  which  they 
have  written.  They  say,  (Ch.  Spec,  for  1833, 
p.  356,^  "  Indeed  we  know  of  no  other  effectual 


NEW    HAVEN    TIlEOLOfiY.  1G5 

hold  which  this  divine  agent  can  have  on  the 
sinner  whom  he  would  turn  from  the  error  of 
his  ways,  but  that  which  consists  in  so  bringing  iX 
the  truths  of  the  Bible  into  contact  with  his  un- 
derstanding and  moral  sensibilities,  that  he  shall 
voluntarily  shun  the  threatened  evil,  and  choose 
the  proffered  good."  If  this  language  was  not 
intended  to  convey  the  idea,  that  the  only  agency 
which  the  Spirit  exerts  in  regeneration,  is  so  to 
bring  truth  and  motives  before  the  mind  of  the 
sinner,  as  to  induce  or  persuade  him  to  turn  from 
the  error  of  his  ways ;  it  is  impossible  to  tell 
what  meaning  was  intended.  All  their  represen- 
tations respecting  the  susceptibilities  of  unre- 
newed men  to  be  influenced  by  the  motives  of 
the  gospel,  and  the  tendency  of  truth,  when 
clearly  seen,  to  weaken  and  suspend  the  selfish 
principle,  and  produce  a  change  of  heart,  are 
suited  to  make  the  same  impression.  Still,  how- 
ever, in  their  review  of  Dr.  Tyler's  Strictures, 
they  say,  "  We  have  never  called  in  question  the 
doctrine  of  an  immediate  and  direct  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration."  Whether  they 
meant,  by  this  declaration,  any  thing  more,  than 
that  they  had  never  formally,  or  in  so  many  words, 
called  this  doctrine  in  question  ;  or  v/hether  they 
intended  to  affirm  that  it  is  still  an  article  of  their 
faith,  I  am  unable  to  decide.  Be  this  however, 
as  it  may,  the  great  body  of  those  who  profess 
to  adopt  the  sentiments  of  the  New  Haven  divines 
do  discard  this  doctrine.  They  deny  that  the 
more  the  sinner  sees  of  God,  the  more  he  hates 
his  character,  and  that  he  invariably  resists  every 
motive  to  holy  obedience,  till  a  new  moral  tem- 
per is  created  or  implanted   in  his   soul  by  the 


166  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  maintain,  with 
Dr.  Beecher  and  Mr.  Finney,  that  the  influence 
of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration,  is  a  persuasive  in- 
fluence exerted  through  the  medium  of  truth  or 
motives.  This,  therefore,  may  be  regarded  as  a 
prominent  doctrine  of  new  divinity. 

That  this  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  views 
of  our  standard  New  England  divines,  is  what  I 
shall  now  attempt  to  show. 

President  Edwards.  "  Observe  that  the 
question  with  some  is,  whether  the  Spirit  of  God 
does  any  thing  at  all  in  these  days,  since  the 
scriptures  have  been  completed.  With  those 
that  allow  that  he  does  any  thing,  the  question 
cannot  be,  whether  his  influence  be  immediate ; 
for  if  he  does  any  thing  at  all,  his  influence  must 
be  immediate."  "  The  Apostle  says, '  In  whom  ye 
are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  with- 
out hands,  in  putting  off'the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ.'  Thisphrase, 
made  without  hands,  in  scripture,  always  denotes 
God's  immediate  power,  above  the  course  of  na- 
ture, above  second  causes."  "  There  are  two 
things  relating  to  the  doctrine  of  efficacious 
grace,  wherein  lies  the  main  difference  between 
Calvinists  and  Arminians  as  to  this  doctrine. 
First,  that  the  grace  of  God  is  determining  and 
decisive  as  to  the  conversion  of  a  sinner,  or  a 
man's  becoming  a  good  man,  and  having  those 
virtuous  qualifications  that  entitle  him  to  an  in- 
terest in  Christ  and  his  salvation.  Second,  that 
the  power  and  grace  and  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in,  or  towards  the  conversion  of  a  sinner, 
is  immediate,  that  the  habit  of  true  virtue  or  ho- 
liness is  immediately  implanted  or  infused  ;  that 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  167 

the  operation  goes  so  far,  that  a  man  has  habitu- 
al holiness  given  to  him  instantly,  wholly  by  the 
operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  not  gradually 
by  assistance  concurring  with  our  endeavors." — 
Miscellaneous  Observations,  pp.  170,  182,  187, 
220. 

Dr.  Brllamy.  "  In  regeneration,  there  is  a 
new,  divine,  and  holy  taste  and  relish  begotten 
in  the  heart  by  the  immediate  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God."  "  That  the  idea  of  a  natural 
beauty  supposes  an  internal  sense,  implanted  by 
our  Creator,  by  which  the  mind  is  capacitated  to 
discern  such  kind  of  beauty,  is  clearly  illustrated 
and  proved,  by  a  late  ingenious  philosopher. 
And  that  the  idea  of  spiritual  sense,  communi- 
cated to  the  soul  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  the 
work  of  the  new  creation,  is  also  as  clearly  il- 
lustrated and  proved,  by  a  late  divine,  whose 
praise  is  in  all  the  churches."  *'  Are  men  regen- 
erated by  the  law  or  by  the  gospel  ?  If,  by  re- 
generated, is  meant  enabled  to  see  the  holy  beauty 
of  divine  truths,  we  are  regenerated  neither  by 
the  law  nor  by  the  gospel,  nor  by  any  external 
means  or  instructions  whatsoever,  but  by  the  im- 
mediate influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit." — Bella- 
mi/s   Works,  Vol  I.  pp.  502,  503,  532. 

Dr.  Hopkins.  *'  The  divine  operation  in  re- 
generation, of  which  the  new  heart  is  the  eflfect, 
is  immediate,  or  it  is  not  wrought  by  the  energy 
of  any  means  as  the  cause  of  it,  but  by  the  im- 
mediate power  and  energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  is  called  a  creation,  and  the  divine  agency  in 
it  is  as  much  without  any  medium,  as  in  creating 
something  from  nothing.  Men  are  not  regene- 
rated in  the  sense  in  which  we  are  now  consider- 


168  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

iiig  regeneration,  by  light  or  the  word  of  Godi 
This  is  evident  from  what  hath  been  said  under 
the  last  particular.  If  the  evil  eye  which  is  total 
darkness,  and  shuts  all  the  light  out,  be  the  evil 
corrupt  heart  of  man,  then  his  corrupt  heart 
must  be  renewed,  in  order  to  there  being  any  true 
light  in  the  mind,  and  previous  to  it.  There 
must  be  a  discerning  heart,  which  is  the  same 
with  the  new  heart,  in  order  to  see  the  light ; 
and  therefore  this  cannot  be  produced  by  light." 
— Hopkins^  System,  Vol.   1 ,  p.  457. 

Dr.  Dwight.  "  The  soul  of  Adam  was  cre- 
ated with  a  relish  for  spiritual  objects.  The 
soul  of  every  man,  who  becomes  a  Christian,  is 
renewed  by  the  communication  of  the  same  rel- 
ish." *'  It  has  been  extensively  supposed,  that 
the  Spirit  of  grace  regenerates  mankind,  by  com- 
municating  to  them  new,  clear,  and  juster  views 
of  spiritual  objects.  The  understanding  being 
thus  enlightened  and  convinced,  the  heart,  it  is 
supposed,  yields  itself  to  this  conviction ;  and 
the  man  spontaneously  becomes,  under  its  influ- 
ence, a  child  of  God.  I  shall  not  attempt  here 
to  describe  the  metaphysical  nature  of  the  work 
of  regeneration  ;  yet  it  appears  to  me  clear,  that 
the  account  which  I  have  now  given  of  this  sub- 
ject, is  not  scriptural  nor  just.  Without  a  rel- 
ish'for  spiritual  objects,  I  cannot  see  that  any 
discoveries  concerning  them,  however  clear  and 
bright,  can  render  them  pleasing  to  the  soul.  If 
they  are  unpleasing  in  their  very  nature,  they 
cannot  be  made  agreeable  by  having  that  nature 
unfolded  more  clearly.  He  who  disrelishes  the 
taste  of  wine,  will  not  relish  it  the  more,  the  more 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  169 

distinctly  and  perfectly  he  perceives  that  taste. 
Nor  will  any  account  of  its  agreeableness  to 
others,  however,  clearly  given,  and  with  what- 
ever evidence  supported,  render  the  taste  agreea- 
ble to  him.  To  enable  him  to  relish  it,  it  seems 
indispensable  that  his  own  taste  should  be  chang- 
ed, and  in  this  manner  fitted  to  realize  the  pleas- 
antness of  the  wine.  Light  is  either  eviclence, 
or  the  perception  of  it;  evidence  of  the  true  na- 
ture of  the  object  which  is  contemplated,  or  the 
perception  of  that  evidence.  But  the  great  diffi- 
culty in  the  present  case  is  this  :  the  nature  of 
the  object  perceived  is  disrelished.  The  more 
then  it  is  perceived,  the  more  it  nmst  be  disrel- 
ished of  course,  so  long  as  the  present  taste  con- 
tinues. It  seems  therefore  indispensable,  that, 
in  order  to  the  usefulness  of  such  superior  light 
to  the  mind,  its  relish  with  respect  to  spiritual 
objects  should  first  be  changed." — Dwighfs 
Theology,  Vol.  1.  pp.  419,  422. 

Dr.  Smalley.  "If  it  be  true  that  man  is  by 
nature  totally  depraved  in  the  spirit  of  his  mind, 
it  is  a  plain  case,  that  the  beginning  of  holiness 
in  him  can  be  no  otherwise  than  by  a  new  crea- 
tion. When  spiritual  life  is  once  begun  in  the 
soul,  in  however  low  a  degree,  it  may  be  preserv- 
ed and  increased  by  moral  means ;  as  well  as 
any  plant  or  animal  can  be  kept  alive,  and  made 
to  grow  by  natural  means.  But  the  first  produc- 
tion of  the  radical  principle  of  this  life,  can  no 
more  be  the  effect  of  any  second  cause,  than  the 
first  root  or  seed  of  any  plant  or  tree  could  have 
been  produced  by  rain,  sunshine,  and  cultiva- 
tion." "  It  is  easy  to  conceive  that  whatever 
propensities  of  nature  one  previously  has,  may 
15 


170  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

be  brought  into  exercise  by  arguments  and  mo- 
tives adapted  to  operate  upon  such  propensities. 
But  how  to  bring  into  existence  a  propensity  of 
nature  or  principle  of  action  radically  new,  and 
essentially  different  from  every  thing  in  the  na- 
tive mind  of  man,  is  the  great  difficulty.  It  is  a 
plain  case,  I  think,  that  it  can  never  be  brought 
to  life,  otherwise  than  by  beiiig,  in  a  proper  and 
strict  sense,  created  in  them  again." — Smalley^s 
Sermons,  pp.  287,  289,  290. 

Dr.  Griffin,  "  How  can  the  motives  of  re- 
ligion be  the  instruments  of  producing  a  new 
disposition,  when  that  disposition  must  exist  be- 
fore the  motives  can  take  hold  of  the  heart?  Or 
the  question  may  be  decided  by  fact.  Have  not 
all  these  motives  assailed  the  heart  for  many 
years,  without  taking  away  a  particle  of  its  oppo- 
sition ?  For  months  together  have  they  not  been 
set  home  upon  the  conscience,  without  at  all 
weakening  the  enmity?  How  comes  it  to  pass, 
then,  that,  at  length,  in  one  moment,  they  enter 
the  heart,  and  rise  to  supreme  dominion  ?  Have 
they  all  at  once  broken  their  way  through,  and 
assisted  in  new-modelling  a  heart,  on  which,  till 
that  moment,  they  could  have  no  influence  ?  The 
decisive  question  is,  was  the  power  applied  to  the 
motives  to  open  a  passage  for  themselves,  or  to 
the  heart  to  open  a  passage  for  them  ?  Let  the 
event  declare — the  heart  was  new  before  the  mo- 
tives entered." — Park  Street  Lectures,  pp.  157, 
158. 

Dr.  Porter.  ''In  regeneration,  it  has  been 
said,  the  sinner's  heart  is  changed  by  the  influ- 
ence of  truth  and  motives,  presented  by  God  ; 
just  as   one  man's  mind   is  changed  in  any  case 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  HI 

by  the  persuasion  of  another.  How  does  the  or- 
ator persuade  his  hearers?  By  appeals  to  their 
understanding,  conscience,  passion,  interest, 
&.C. ;  that  is,  by  addressing  principles  that  are  in 
the  men  already, — principles  that  are  in  all  men. 
He  operates  on  their  minds  by  an  objective  in- 
fluence ;  by  the  presentation  of  external  motives 
adapted  to  sway  their  purpose.  This  is  all  he 
can  do.  But  is  this  all  that  God  can  do  ? 
He  addresses  men  by  the  solemn  motives 
of  the  gospel,  through  preaching,  and  other 
external  means  of  persuasion.  But  is  this  all 
that  he  can  do  ?  Certainly  not ;  for  besides  the 
presentation  of  motives,  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  second  causes,  he  can  exert  an  immediate 
influence  on  minds,  such  as  no  man  has  the  pow- 
er of  exerting  on  another  man;  and_;this  is  the 
influence  which  he  does  exert  in  regeneration. 
To  deny  this,  is  to  deny  special  grace.  For  if 
regeneration  is  produced  by  an  influence  the  same 
as  that  employed  by  one  man  on  the  mind  of  an- 
other, in  common  persuasion  ;  certainly  it  is  not, 
in  any  sense,  a  supernatural  work.  Jt  takes 
place  according  to  the  laws  of  nature,  in  the  or- 
dinary course  of  cause  and  effect." — Letters  on 
Revivah,  pp.  84,  85. 

Such  are  the  views  which  have  been  uniformly 
maintained  by  New  England  Calvinists  on  this 
subject.  The  opposite  theory  is  an  old  Pelagi- 
an theory  revived.  1  do  not  know  of  a  writer, 
claiming  to  be  a  Calviniet,  who  ever  advanced 
this  theory,  till  these  modern  theologians  arose. 
1  am  yours,  very  affectionately. 


LETTER  XVIII. 

May  18,  1837. 

My  Dear  Brother  : 

Dr.  Taylor,  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Hawes,  says : 
"  I  believe  that  all  who  are  renewed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  elected  or  chosen  of  God  from  eternity, 
that  they  should  be  holy  ;  not  on  account  of 
foreseen  faith  or  good  works,  but  according  to 
the  good  pleasure  of  his  will." 

This  statement,  taken  by  itself  in  its  most  ob- 
vious meaning,  would  seem  to  contain  a  correct 
view  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  as  maintained 
by  Calvinists.  But  when  we  compare  this  state- 
ment with  other  statements  made  by  him  and  his 
associates,  we  are  compelled  to  conclude  that  he 
must  attach  to  the  language  a  meaning  entirely 
different  from  that  in  which  it  has  been  commonly 
received.  The  grand  question  at  issue  between 
Arminians  and  Calvinists,  on  this  subject,  is,  and 
ever  has  been,  whether  election  is  conditional  or 
unconditional ;  in  other  words,  whether  God  has 
elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  because  he  fore- 
saw they  would  comply  with  the  terms  of  salva- 
tion or  whether  their  compliance  is  a  consequence 


NEW    IIAVEX    TIIEOLO<JV.  KJl 

of  their  election.  The  Arminians  maintain  that 
God  truly  desires,  all  things  considered,  that  all 
men  should  become  holy  and  be  saved — that  he 
not  only  offers  salvation  to  all,  but  does  all  that 
he  can,  consistently  with  their  moral  freedom,  to 
induce  all  to  comply  with  the  conditions  of  par- 
don. They  maintain  also,  that  sinners  may 
effectually  resist  the  grace  of  God,  and  thus  ren- 
der it  impossible  for  God  to  convert  them.  The 
purpose  of  election,  according  to  them,  is  God's 
eternal  purpose  to  save  those  who,  he  foresaw, 
would  cease  to  resist  his  grace,  and  submit  to  his 
authority. 

The  Calvinists,  on  the  other  hand  maintain 
that  such  is  the  depravity  of  the  human  heart, 
that  no  man  will  comply  with  the  conditions  of 
pardon,  until  he  is  made  willing  in  the  day  of 
God's  power.  They  maintain  also,  that  the  rea- 
son why  God  does  not  secure  the  holiness  and 
happiness  of  all  his  moral  creatures,  is  not  be- 
cause he  is  unable  to  do  it,  but  because  he  does 
not  see  it  to  be,  on  the  whole,  for  the  best;  that 
for  wise  reasons,  which  he  has  not  revealed,  he 
has  determined  to  make  some  the  trophies  of  his 
grace,  and  to  leave  others  to  persist  in  sin  and 
perish. 

That  the  views  of  the  New  Haven  divines  on 
this  subject  are  essentially  Arminian,  is  what  I 
shall  now  undertake  to  show.     And, 

In  the  first  place,  they  maintain  that  "  God,  all 
things  considered,  prefers  holiness  to  sin,  in  all 
instances  in  which  the  latter  takes  place."  If 
this  be  so,  it  nmst  be  God's  choice,  all  things 
considered,  that  all  men  should  become  holy  and 
be  saved,  and  his  infinite  benevolence  will 
15* 


174  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

;  prompt  him  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  bring  all 
men  to  repentance.  Accordingly  they  say,  Ch. 
Spec.  1832,  p.  660  :  "  God,  not  only  prefers,  on 
the  whole,  that  his  creatures  should  forever  per- 
form their  duties,  rather  than  neglect  them  ;  but 
purposes,  on  his  part  to  do  all  in  his  power  to 
promote  this  very  object,  in  his  kingdom."  But 
if  God  does  all  in  his  power  to  bring  all  men  to 
repentance,  then  the  distinction  between  saints 
and  sinners  does  not  result  from  the  sovereign 
purpose  and  election  of  God,  but  from  man's  free 
will.  It  is  not  true  that  God  will  have  mercy  on 
whom  he  will  have  mercy,  for  he  would  have 
mercy  on  all  if  he  could.  "  He  would  have 
prevented  all  sin  in  his  moral  universe,  but  could 
not." 

Again.  The  New  Haven  divines  maintain 
that  sinners  may  so  resist  the  grace  of  God  as  to 
render  it  impossible  for  God  to  convert  them. 
*'  In  all  cases,  it  (the  grace  of  God)  may  be 
resisted  by  man  as  a  free  moral  agent,  and  it 
never  becomes  effectual  to  salvation  till  it  is 
unresisted;"  that  is,  till  the  selfish  principle  is 
suspended,  and  the  sinner  ceases  to  sin,  and  be- 
gins to  use  the  means  of  regeneration.  "  Free 
moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under  all  possible 
preventing  influence.  Using  their  powers  as 
they  may  use  them,  they  will  sin,"  "We  know 
that  a  moral  system  implies  the  existence  of  free 
agents,  with  power  to  act  in  despite  of  all  oppo- 
sing power.  If  this  be  so,  what  election  can 
there  be  except  what  is  founded  on  foreseen 
repentance  and  faith?  Most  certainly,  according 
to  this  theory,  before  God  could  have  purposed 
to  save  any  individuals,  he  must  have  foreseen 


OP    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  175 

that  those  individuals  would  cease  to  resist  his 
grace,  and  thus  render  it  possible  for  him  to  con- 
vert them.  His  purpose  to  save  them,  therefore, 
must  have  been  grounded  on  the  foresight  of  their 
submission. 

Again.  The  statements  of  this  doctrine,  con- 
tained in  the  Christian  Spectator,  evidenly  pro- 
ceed on  the  same  supposition. 

"  God  offers  the  same  necessary  conditions  of 
acceptance  to  all  men ;  desires  from  the  heart 
that  all  men,  as  free  agents,  would  comply  with 
them  and  live  ;  brings  no  positive  influence  upon 
any  mind  against  compliance  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, brings  all  those  kinds,  and  all  that  degree 
of  influence  in  favor  of  it  upon  each  individual, 
which  a  system  of  measures  best  arranged  for 
the  success  of  grace  in  a  world  of  rebellion 
allows;  and  finally,  saves,  without  respect  of  kin- 
dred, rank,  or  country  ;  whether  Scythian,  Greek, 
or  Jew,  all  who,  under  this  influence,  accept  the 
terms,  and  work  out  their  own  salvation,  and  rep- 
robates alike  all  who  refuse." — Christian  Specta- 
tor, 1831,  p.  635. 

According  to  this  representation,  the  purpose 
of  election  is  simply  God's  determination  to  save 
those  who,  he  foresaw,  would  accept  the  terms  of 
pardon.  This  is  still  more  explicitly  expressed 
in  the  following  passage  : 

"  The  means  of  reclaiming  grace,  which  meet 
him  in  the  word  and  spirit  of  God,  are  those  by 
which  the  father  draws,  induces  just  such  sinners 
as  himself  voluntarily  to  submit  to  Christ;  and 
these  means  all  favor  the  act  of  his  immediate 
submission.  To  this  influence  he  can  yield,  and 
thus  be  drawn  of  the  Father.     This  influence  he 


176  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

can  resist,  and  thus  harden  his  heart  against 
God.  Election  involves  nothing  more,  as  it  re- 
spects his  individual  case,  except  one  fact — the 
certainty  to  the  divine  mind,  whether  the  sinner 
will  yield  to  the  means  of  grace,  and  voluntarily 
turn  to  God,  or  whether  he  will  continue  to  hard- 
en his  heart  till  the  means  of  grace  are  with- 
drawn."— Id.  p.  637. 

Now,  what  is  this  but  the  Arminian  view  of 
election  founded  on  the  foresight  of  faith  and 
obedience?  God  employs  the  best  means  which 
his  wisdom  can  devise  to  bring  all  men  to  repent- 
ance. He  draws,  induces  them  to  submit  to 
Christ.  Every  sinner  can  yield  to  these  means, 
or  he  can  resist  them.  Election  involves  nothing 
more,  except  one  fact,  the  certainty  to  the 
DIVINE  MIND  ;  that  is,  the  divine  foreknowledge, 
"  whether  the  sinner  will  yield  to  the  means  of 
grace,  &c."  In  other  words,  the  purpose  of  elec- 
tion is  God's  purpose  to  save  all  who  he  foresaw 
would  obey  the  gospel.  This  is  the  very  doctrine 
which  the  Arminians  have  always  maintained. 
They  say  again  : 

**  The  purpose  of  election,  rightly  interpreted, 
then,  in  our  view,  brings  the  God  of  justice  and 
grace  into  immediate  contact  with  our  rebellious 
world,  staying  the  execution  of  justice,  and  urg- 
ing gracious  terms  of  reconciliation  on  men,  on 
purpose  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  speedy  issue, 
and  to  gain  whom,  in  the  methods  of  his  wisdom 
he  can,  over  to  his  authority  and  kingdom." — Id. 
p.  638. 

Here  again  we  are  brought  to  the  same  point. 
God's  purpose  of  election,  is  his  purpose  to  gain 
as  many  of  the  human  race  as  he  can.     But  what 


OP    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  177 

election  is  this,  if  God  did,  all  things  considered, 
desire  the  salvation  of  Judas  as  much  as  the  sal- 
vation of  Peter,  and  if  he  did  all  in  his  power  to 
secure  the  happiness  and  holiness  of  Judas,  how 
can  it  be  said  that  Peter  was  elected  in  distinc- 
tion from  Judas  ?     Who  made  them  to  differ  ? 

That  this  view  of  the  doctrine  of  election  dif- 
fers widely  from  that  which  has  been  maintained 
by  the  orthodox  divines  of  New  England,  might 
be  shown  by  abundant  quotations  from  their  wri- 
tings.    I  shall  give  only  a  few  specimens. 

President  Edwards.  *'  It  is  most  absurd  to 
call  such  a  conditional  election  as  they  talk  of, 
by  the  name  of  election,  seeing  there  is  a  neces- 
ary  connection  between  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  and 
eternal  life.  Those  that  believe  in  Christ  must 
be  saved  according  to  God's  inviolable  constitu- 
tion of  things.  But  if  they  say  that  election  is 
only  God's  determination  in  the  general,  that  all 
that  believe  shall  be  saved,  in  what  sense  can 
this  be  called  election  ?  They  are  not  persons 
that  are  here  chosen,  but  mankind  is  divided  into 
two  sorts,  the  one  believing,  and  the  other  unbe- 
lieving, and  God  chooses  the  believing  sort ;  it  is 
not  election  of  persons,  but  of  qualifications. 
God  does,  from  all  eternity  choose  to  bestow 
eternal  life  upon  those  who  have  a  right  to  it, 
rather  than  upon  those  who  have  a  right  to  dam- 
nation. Is  this  all  the  election  we  have  an  ac- 
count of  in  God's  word  ?"  "  God,  in  the  decree 
of  election,  is  justly  to  be  considered  as  decree- 
ing the  creature's  eternal  happiness  antecedently 
to  any  foresight  of  good  works,  in  a  sense  where- 
in he  does  not  in  reprobation  decree  the  crea- 
ture's eternal  misery,  antecedently  to  any  fore- 
sight of  sin ;  because  the  being  of  sin  is  suppo- 


178  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

sed  in  the  first  place  in  order  to  the  decree  of 
reprobation,  which  is,  that  God  will  glorify  his 
vindictive  justice,  and  the  very  notion  of  reveng- 
ing justtce^  simply  considered,  supposes  a  fault  to 
be  revenged.  But  faith  and  good  works  are  not 
supposed,  in  the  first  place,  in  order  to  the  de- 
cree of  election." — 3IisccL  Obs.  pp.  150,  162. 

Dr.  Hopkins.  "The  elect  are  not  chosen  to 
salvation  rather  than  others,  because  of  any  moral 
excellence  in  them,  or  out  of  respect  to  any  fore- 
seen faith  and  repentence,  or  because  their  moral 
characters  are  in  any  respect  better  than  others. 
The  difference  between  them  and  others^  in  this 
respect,  whenever  it  takes  place,  is  the  fruit  and 
consequence  of  their  election,  and  not  the  ground 
and  reason  of  it.  All  mankind  are  totally  sin- 
ful, wholly  lost,  undone,  in  themselves  infinitely 
guilty  and  ill  deserving.  And  all  must  perish 
forever,  were  it  not  for  electing  grace  ;  were  they 
not  selected  from  the  rest  and  given  to  the  Re- 
deemer, to  be  saved  by  him,  and  so  made  vessels 
of  mercy  prepared  unto  glory." — Hopkins'  Si/s- 
tem, Vol  II,  143,  151. 

Dr.  Smalley.  "  The  scripture  doctrine  of 
election  I  understand  to  be  this  ;  that  a  certain 
number  of  mankind,  including  all  who  will  actu- 
ally be  saved,  were  chosen  of  God  to  salvation 
from  all  eternity  ;  in  such  an  absolute  manner, 
that  it  is  impossible  any  one  of  them  should 
finally  be  lost."  "  It  is  a  wrong  notion  of  the 
doctrine  of  election,  to  suppose  that  God's  choice 
of  persons  as  the  heirs  of  grace  and  glory,  was 
grounded  on  his  foreknowledge  of  their  faith  and 
works."  "  If  he  foresaw  that  any  number  of 
them  would  cordially  believe   and  obey  the  gos- 


OF    NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY.  179 

pel,  it  must  be  because  he  determined  to  put  such 
an  heart  in  them.  Consequently,  his  electing 
them  to  eternal  life,  could  not  be  grounded  on  his 
foreknowledge  of  their  doing  the  things  requir- 
ed, in  order  to  their  salvation;  but  his  foreknowl- 
edge that  they  would  do  these  things,  must  have 
been  grounded  on  his  purpose  to  give  them  effec- 
tual grace,  working  in  them  to  will  and  to  doj  of 
his  good  pleasure." — Snialhy's  Sermons,  ^t^.  260, 
264,  266. 

Dii.  Griffin.  *'  The  only  question  is,  what 
does  God  perform?  What  does  he  accomplish 
by  positive  power?  What  does  he  permit?  If 
it  is  a  fact  that  he  changes  one  sinner,  and  per- 
mits another  to  take  his  course  to  ruin,  he  always 
intended  to  do  the  same."  "  The  doctrine  of 
election,  thus  necessarily  deduced  from  that  of 
regeneration,  is  abundantly  supported  by  the  word 
of  God.  There  we  are  distinctly  taught  that 
God  eternally  elected  a  part  of  mankind,  not  on 
account  of  their  foreseen  holiness,  but  to  holi- 
ness itself." — Park  Street  Lectures,  pp.  174,  175. 

Dr.  Woods.  "Whenever  God  first  makes 
men  holy,  he  must  do  it  without  regard  to  any 
goodness  in  them.  He  can  look  at  no  works  of 
righteousness  which  they  have  done,  but  must 
act  from  the  impulse  of  his  own  infinite  love. 
And  W'e  are  to  view  the  purpose  of  God  in  rela- 
tion to  this  subject,  as  in  all  respects  corres- 
ponding to  his  acting.  It  geems  then  perfectly 
clear,  that  God  did  not  determine  to  regenerate 
men  or  make  them  holy,  from  any  foresight  of 
repentance,  faith,  or  good  works,  as  conditions 
or  causes  moving  him  thereunto.  The  first  pro-- 
duction  of  holiness  cannot  surely  have  respect  tQ 


180  NEW    HAVEN    THEOLOGY. 

any  previous  holiness." — Reply  to  Dr.  Ware,  p 
157. 

I  might  easily  multiply  quotations.  But  these 
may  be  regarded  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  views 
which  have  been  uniformly  entertained  of  this 
doctrine  by  New  England  Calvinists. 

And  now,  my  dear  brother,  having  protracted 
this  series  of  letters  much  beyond  my  original 
intention,  I  propose,  for  a  season  at  least,  to  re- 
lieve your  patience,  and  that  of  your  numerous 
readers  to  whom  they  have  been  given  through 
the  press.  My  object  has  been  to  give  you  a 
plain,  unvarnished  narration  of  facts  relating  to 
matters  of  great  interest  at  the  present  day. 
The  story  is,  in  many  respects,  a  painful  one, 
but  it  seems  important  that  the  truth  should  be 
known.  I  have  stated  nothing  as  fact,  of  which 
I  have  not  either  personal  knou^ledge,  or  inform- 
ation from  sources  in  which  I  repose  the  fullest 
confidence.  Should  it  hereafter  appear  that  I 
have  fallen  into  any  mistakes,  I  shall  esteem  it 
not  only  a  duty  but  a  privilege  to  correct  them. 
While  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  speak  freely  of 
the  opinions  of  living  men,  I  have  intended  to  do 
it  with  kindness  and  candor.  I  certainly  am  not 
concious  of  any  unfriendly  feelings  towards  those 
brethren  from  whom  I  differ  in  opinion.  My 
prayer  is  that  we  may  yet  see  eye  to  eye,  and 
again  lift  up  our  voices  together  in  defence  of 
the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 

Yours  very  affectionately. 


Date  Due 

S^i^fefe*^-^ 

mmm 

im^ 

**^^^JB^ 

'^ 

-— " '- 

^'■^  „.*»*«* 

^.. 

•UMlkeimi 

m 

"'^» — -i^-- 

■*rmmi^ 

^^ii: 

IfflP^ 

f) 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

I'm  rni  n,Y.°,H'.'"'   Sfminary-Speer   Library 


1    1012  01145  2648 


